Guest pelmetman Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Latin name ......Shaftusmiddleclasses 8-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Labour just need to find the magic money tree Theresa May found the £2billion bung she gave to the DUP to keep her job (after calling an election she said she wouldn't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 If the UK has been downgraded by Moodys with a Tory government.........what do you think would happen if Corbyn got his hands on the UK cheque book? 8-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 JC can plant as many money trees as he likes but by the time he comes to harvest them many of the fast growers will have vanished abroad - leaving the middle earners and savers to pick up the bill as ever. But at leastmany of us will all be equal, we will all have sod all, apart from some who will be more equal than others in the true union and socialism tradition. And talking of buying votes, it seems a good time to be a union member, a government employee, a council tenant, a parent, or a student so guess whose Christmas thry will be tempted to vote for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 In truth, this is a perpetual argument, usually characterised as representing capital vs labour. The problem is that all developed countries need taxes, to on things that are of disputed value. However, in a civilised country (and even in quite a few uncivilised ones!) taxes seem inescapable, to provide for the common good. So, how much tax is needed and where from, and what should those taxes should be spent on. This debate, broadly, goes to the root of democracy. Answers on a postcard, please! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Corbyn has regained the middle ground 8-) .......... Blimey he really is unbalanced :D ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-09-27 7:30 PM In truth, this is a perpetual argument, usually characterised as representing capital vs labour. The problem is that all developed countries need taxes, to on things that are of disputed value. However, in a civilised country (and even in quite a few uncivilised ones!) taxes seem inescapable, to provide for the common good. So, how much tax is needed and where from, and what should those taxes should be spent on. This debate, broadly, goes to the root of democracy. Answers on a postcard, please! :-D Land Value Tax. Instead of discouraging work by taxing earned income, - tax unearned inherited income instead. Land can't be hidden.. If they don't pay the tax, seize the land and the owners will soon appear from behind their shell companies in tax havens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-27 10:07 PM Corbyn has regained the middle ground 8-) .......... Blimey he really is unbalanced :D ...... How can he have regained the middle ground when he has never before even been close to the middle ground. Like all clever would be dictators he likes to appear fair and moderate before he gets into power but as can be seen from so many previous wannabe dictators, once in power the tune rapidly changes. On the other hand as our age group could benefit substantially from increased pensions and a better and quicker NHS it makes me wonder why we should protest as our generation will never have to worry about repaying the debt? So maybe we should all vote Corbyn and let our kids worry about paying for it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Tracker - 2017-09-28 10:52 AM pelmetman - 2017-09-27 10:07 PM Corbyn has regained the middle ground 8-) .......... Blimey he really is unbalanced :D ...... How can he have regained the middle ground when he has never before even been close to the middle ground. Like all clever would be dictators he likes to appear fair and moderate before he gets into power but as can be seen from so many previous wannabe dictators, once in power the tune rapidly changes. On the other hand as our age group could benefit substantially from increased pensions and a better and quicker NHS it makes me wonder why we should protest as our generation will never have to worry about repaying the debt? So maybe we should all vote Corbyn and let our kids worry about paying for it all! The kids all love him now Rich anyway so what's the problem? :D The Tories always leave more debt anyway. The papers just make it up about it being the other way around. I should know, I used to be a Tory and even worked for their bleeding party years ago. :D Get some tickets for Glasto, build a wigwam and vote for Jezza. I'm not sure he will be our saviour but you will feel better for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Barryd999 - 2017-09-28 2:27 PM Get some tickets for Glasto, build a wigwam and vote for Jezza. I'm not sure he will be our saviour but you will feel better for it. I can't say wading through mud or living in a tent appeal to my sense of adventure these days Barry, and I too doubt that JC will save the country, but it is tempting to give Anglicised Communism a go - after all can JC really be any worse than Gordon Brown and David Cameron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 To quote Tracker, quoting Barry".....".... I can't say wading through mud or living in a tent appeal to my sense of adventure these days Barry, and I too doubt that JC will save the country, but it is tempting to give Anglicised Communism a go - after all can JC really be any worse than Gordon Brown and David Cameron? And would he be any worse than Rees-Mogg, Davies! Fox! Johnson!and Gove?! I don't think so. It's just a pity that they are all rather ancient, in attitudes if not fact As for aNglicised communism, that sounds a bit like Trump to me. Best wishes Alan b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 I thought Mayfly's claim (apparently) in response was more encouraging. I think she's right about the benefits that have flowed from free market economics. I further agree with her proviso that to serve our interests, the free market must be properly regulated. Most, including ours, are not, which is why Labour are currently looking popular. The result of inadequate regulation has been the unbridled growth of inequality, which is the reason our kids can't afford homes, so many work in the "gig" economy, our roads are bust, our universities expensive, much of our infrastructure is in foreign ownership, and education and the NHS are struggling. We don't have regulators with teeth, and rely excessively on self-regulation, where the poachers regulate themselves - not. I saw a programme a few years back in which a New York pubic health inspector was shadowed as he made unannounced visits to various restaurant kitchens. One had a minor problem with cockroaches. The owner was served notice to get the problem sorted within a fixed time, and the shadow asked the inspector what would happen next. The inspector said he'd be back to re-inspect on expiry of the term. What if the problem hadn't been fixed, the shadow asked. Oh, said the inspector, I go into the street and summon a cop. He then orders everyone out, at gunpoint if necessary, and shuts the restaurant until further notice - owners don't risk that happening a second time! Bit dramatic, but at least the inspector got the owner's full attention! We need something a bit similar, where transgressions are immediately penalised, there are no negotiations, no advance warnings and, if necessary, arrests made on the spot. Our processes are so drawn out no-one can remember the incident by the time the outcome is announced! I somehow doubt that is quite what the Mayfly has in mind, which is, IMO, to our mutual disadvantage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-09-28 5:23 PM I thought Mayfly's claim (apparently) in response was more encouraging. I think she's right about the benefits that have flowed from free market economics. I further agree with her proviso that to serve our interests, the free market must be properly regulated. Most, including ours, are not, which is why Labour are currently looking popular. The result of inadequate regulation has been the unbridled growth of inequality, which is the reason our kids can't afford homes, so many work in the "gig" economy, our roads are bust, our universities expensive, much of our infrastructure is in foreign ownership, and education and the NHS are struggling. We don't have regulators with teeth, and rely excessively on self-regulation, where the poachers regulate themselves - not. I saw a programme a few years back in which a New York pubic health inspector was shadowed as he made unannounced visits to various restaurant kitchens. One had a minor problem with cockroaches. The owner was served notice to get the problem sorted within a fixed time, and the shadow asked the inspector what would happen next. The inspector said he'd be back to re-inspect on expiry of the term. What if the problem hadn't been fixed, the shadow asked. Oh, said the inspector, I go into the street and summon a cop. He then orders everyone out, at gunpoint if necessary, and shuts the restaurant until further notice - owners don't risk that happening a second time! Bit dramatic, but at least the inspector got the owner's full attention! We need something a bit similar, where transgressions are immediately penalised, there are no negotiations, no advance warnings and, if necessary, arrests made on the spot. Our processes are so drawn out no-one can remember the incident by the time the outcome is announced! I somehow doubt that is quite what the Mayfly has in mind, which is, IMO, to our mutual disadvantage! We only have a free market where it suits them. No free market in housing for instance, because they restrict the production of new housing with planning constraints - or give the decision to local nimbys with the same result. Unlike Housing, QE didn't inflate the price of Consumer Goods because the UK Government wasn't restricting production of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-09-28 5:23 PM I saw a programme a few years back in which a New York pubic health inspector Best typo award of the year goes to Mr B Kirby (lol) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 We'll you takes your choice; Friedman or Keynes. I've just read a couple of books that I'd recommend; Naomi Klein: "The Shock Doctrine" and Kate Raworth: "Doughnut Economics" I think we are getting close to having to make some choices, like Peak Oil; Peak Growth, is getting close, if not already been reached, and heads in the sand will get us nowhere. Happy Days Regards Alan b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-28 6:09 PM.......................No free market in housing for instance, because they restrict the production of new housing with planning constraints - or give the decision to local nimbys with the same result..................... Housing used to be affordable, John, and there have long (even before the 1947 Act) been planning restrictions, and they have long been locally administered. The problem is not the planning system, it is the supply of land, with too much being hoarded by the developers, who then blame the planning system. Gawd help us if there were no planning system: the country would be filled with even more, even smaller, houses crammed in to every available patch extending away from every town and village in the country. It was that kind of development which persuaded successive governments since 1909 that development had to be controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 And Parker-Morris standards went out of the, window years ago! If you watch "location, location,location" you'll see that the the best value floor area wise, are the former local authority houses and flats that Thatcher released onto the market. Look closely at any town, city or village and you'll see housing stock that is hardly fit for the 20th century let alone the 21st. As for distorting the housing market, I think profits on housing, even homes that we live in should be taxed when sold, and properly earned income should be taxed less. I don't think my kids would object to their inheritance(if there's any left) being taxed in that way Cheers Alan b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-09-28 7:09 PM John52 - 2017-09-28 6:09 PM.......................No free market in housing for instance, because they restrict the production of new housing with planning constraints - or give the decision to local nimbys with the same result..................... Housing used to be affordable, John, and there have long (even before the 1947 Act) been planning restrictions, and they have long been locally administered. The problem is not the planning system, it is the supply of land, with too much being hoarded by the developers, who then blame the planning system. Gawd help us if there were no planning system: the country would be filled with even more, even smaller, houses crammed in to every available patch extending away from every town and village in the country. It was that kind of development which persuaded successive governments since 1909 that development had to be controlled. No because the gap between building land prices and other land prices would narrow as more planning permissipn was given. Once building land prices started falling the landbankers would release their land on to the housing market because they would know the price isn't about to go up any more. Just look at google maps satellite and see how much land could be built on - and what is a better use for it than housing the homeless? - Golf Courses *-) Wild Bird Habitat *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Barryd999 - 2017-09-28 2:27 PM The kids all love him now Rich anyway so what's the problem? :D Yep you need to be either young and innocent or old and gullible or just plain stupid to believe in JC :D ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-28 6:09 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-09-28 5:23 PM I thought Mayfly's claim (apparently) in response was more encouraging. I think she's right about the benefits that have flowed from free market economics. I further agree with her proviso that to serve our interests, the free market must be properly regulated. Most, including ours, are not, which is why Labour are currently looking popular. The result of inadequate regulation has been the unbridled growth of inequality, which is the reason our kids can't afford homes, so many work in the "gig" economy, our roads are bust, our universities expensive, much of our infrastructure is in foreign ownership, and education and the NHS are struggling. We don't have regulators with teeth, and rely excessively on self-regulation, where the poachers regulate themselves - not. I saw a programme a few years back in which a New York pubic health inspector was shadowed as he made unannounced visits to various restaurant kitchens. One had a minor problem with cockroaches. The owner was served notice to get the problem sorted within a fixed time, and the shadow asked the inspector what would happen next. The inspector said he'd be back to re-inspect on expiry of the term. What if the problem hadn't been fixed, the shadow asked. Oh, said the inspector, I go into the street and summon a cop. He then orders everyone out, at gunpoint if necessary, and shuts the restaurant until further notice - owners don't risk that happening a second time! Bit dramatic, but at least the inspector got the owner's full attention! We need something a bit similar, where transgressions are immediately penalised, there are no negotiations, no advance warnings and, if necessary, arrests made on the spot. Our processes are so drawn out no-one can remember the incident by the time the outcome is announced! I somehow doubt that is quite what the Mayfly has in mind, which is, IMO, to our mutual disadvantage! We only have a free market where it suits them. No free market in housing for instance, because they restrict the production of new housing with planning constraints - or give the decision to local nimbys with the same result. Unlike Housing, QE didn't inflate the price of Consumer Goods because the UK Government wasn't restricting production of those. The housing problem is mainly a London and South East issue, exacerbated by the EU open door migration policy *-) .......... There's no shortage of property to rent here in Lincolnshire ;-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-29 8:26 AM Yep you need to be either young and innocent or old and gullible or just plain stupid to believe in JC :D ....... It's not about believing or not believing in JC and his cronies, it's all about who will spend the most money on making MY life better and the future beyond the immediate is not my worry - even for the younger generation who will pick up the bill eventually and whose worry it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-29 8:29 AM There's no shortage of property to rent here in Lincolnshire ;-) ......... You might as well say there is no shortage of gold or diamonds because there is always some for sale *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-29 8:29 AM . The housing problem is mainly a London and South East issue, exacerbated by the EU open door migration policy *-) .......... I've no doubt that is partly true - but is also caused by lack of investment by the UK government over many years which has caused migration from the north to the south by people looking for jobs. I have a nasty feeling that when the UK government gets full control of our finances it will only mean much more help going to the south and south east. Bit more crossrail perhaps - or a new runway for Heathrow - or maybe a faster rail link to somewhere that Londoners like visiting ? Any new infrastructure in the north ? Electrification of the railways up there ( oh no - they've just cancelled that ). :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 malc d - 2017-09-29 12:23 PM much more help going to the south and south east. Which is, of course, the root cause of the housing crisis down there. Put everything in London so all the work is there, then strangle it with a 'Green Belt' so it creates a housing shortage and more rent for the wealth extractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-29 4:00 PM malc d - 2017-09-29 12:23 PM much more help going to the south and south east. Which is, of course, the root cause of the housing crisis down there. Put everything in London so all the work is there, then strangle it with a 'Green Belt' so it creates a housing shortage and more rent for the wealth extractors. If investment and wealth was evenly distributed through England there wouldn't be any need for a " green belt " around London - although I support green belts as I have seen for myself the spread of concrete eastwards from London over many years and it can't be good for pollution levels. No doubt the establishment will continue to ensure that they benefit from high house prices there. After all when they retire they can sell their two bedroom flat in Hounslow and buy an estate in the north. ( What's not to like - from their point of view ) Hardly likely that anything will change - especially when "we" get back full control of our finances. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.