Quote ="Sal Paradise" Interesting post - if it hadn't been Bill Gates it would have been somebody else who would have been equally rich.'" Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Quote ="Sal Paradise"I don't agree with your last point - anyone can prosper no matter their upbringing they just need the desire, the idea and the ability to make it happen. Toffs will always invest in ideas where they see a personal return. You can't give everyone the drive to make a difference in their life by attempting to do what you are suggesting you have to bring the top down you can't drag the bottom up - that for me is receipe for disaster and possibly explains why Socialism has never prospered anywhere'" Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.

Quote ="Sal Paradise" Interesting post - if it hadn't been Bill Gates it would have been somebody else who would have been equally rich.'" Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Quote ="Sal Paradise"I don't agree with your last point - anyone can prosper no matter their upbringing they just need the desire, the idea and the ability to make it happen. Toffs will always invest in ideas where they see a personal return. You can't give everyone the drive to make a difference in their life by attempting to do what you are suggesting you have to bring the top down you can't drag the bottom up - that for me is receipe for disaster and possibly explains why Socialism has never prospered anywhere'" Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.

Which is what the most stable, healthy, wealthy, content countries are. No-one on here or the vast majority of the opposition are suggesting anything but state ownership of the infrastructure & essential services.

Look at their financial statements.

Quote ="Mild Rover"Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.'" How would you change/redistribute the human spirit and desire to innovate and financially maximise that idea. What do they say about the British great innovators but terrible marketers. There will always be extreme's that unavoidable - we have very tall people and very short people, we have model-like beauty and less striking people. We have Mensa types and less intelligent humans - you will never create a level playing field or anything close to it. In the more developed countries most have access to the same level of education and opportunity what they choose to do with it the state cannot/should not control. Agreed a mixed economy is needed it is about the degree of intervention you want from the state. How you redistribute wealth - it would interesting to understand how much of the wealthy they give away to charities - Gates £27bn, Warren Buffett £21bn, Paul Allan gave away £2bn - perhaps this is the best way of wealth redistribution

Quote ="Mild Rover"Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.'" How would you change/redistribute the human spirit and desire to innovate and financially maximise that idea. What do they say about the British great innovators but terrible marketers. There will always be extreme's that unavoidable - we have very tall people and very short people, we have model-like beauty and less striking people. We have Mensa types and less intelligent humans - you will never create a level playing field or anything close to it. In the more developed countries most have access to the same level of education and opportunity what they choose to do with it the state cannot/should not control. Agreed a mixed economy is needed it is about the degree of intervention you want from the state. How you redistribute wealth - it would interesting to understand how much of the wealthy they give away to charities - Gates £27bn, Warren Buffett £21bn, Paul Allan gave away £2bn - perhaps this is the best way of wealth redistribution

So you efficiently & humanely plan social services, health systems, emergency services based on the occasional generosity of rich people, a number whom spend large sums avoiding their tax responsibilities?

Yes there is no problem with the uneven distribution of wealth in the USA.

No not at all - the current system already provides for that but how do you further redistribute wealth as yet none of you have come up with a coherent idea as to how you are going to achieve that.

So far we have had curtail the opportunities to the truly brilliant because opportunities afforded to them are not available to the normal citizen. Tax the rich - get real, tax corporations again get real. Curtail entrepeneurs again is the state seriously going to generate the wealth required to pump the money into the poor so they don't have to use Aldi they can all access Waitrose? or do we simply close Waitrose More Socialist mumbo-jumbo it's delusional.

Humans are not all the same - take education - there are parents who are prepared to sacrifice holidays/extras to pay for their kids to go to private school or in my case I take out an insurance policy that covered the costs. You would have denied me that opportunity because it isn't available to everyone. A lot of people could do the same if they were prepared to make the same effort but because some don't see it as a priority nobody should be allowed because those kids that do have an unfair advantage - really.

Gates and Buffet have given away the equivilent of the CT take in a year - the amounts given away by rich people is huge - shame the narrow minded on here cannot acknowledge that.

By improving the lives of all citizens, especially the people at the bottom.
Free education, it increases social mobility.
Free properly funded healthcare, it improves living standards.
More social housing, we used to build hundreds of thousands of council houses every year.
Rent controls, other European countries have this.
Free school meals for all, should any children go hungry.
State owned utilities (electricity, gas and water) and state owned transport (railways and buses) private companies running monopolies have been a disaster, they completely rip people off, especially the most vulnerable.

Corporation tax has been reduced over the last 10 years, reverse these tax cuts.
We have virtually no wealth taxes for individuals, we only really tax income, that needs to change.

We need to go back to a starting rate of income tax of 33 per cent.

Okay, so we’re incoherent, unrealistic and delusional by your parameters.

But, in fairness, your solution is international fiscal harmonisation. Which in of itself would do little or nothing to change wealth distribution, even if it were feasible. And on the Brexit thread there are some indications that you’re not that keen restrictions on national economic autonomy. S’been fun though.

How do you improve the life of all citizens?
We have free education - its available to everyone
We have free health care it is also available to everyone - the NHS delivers an amazing service especially if you are truly ill - it doesn't get everything but it gets a lot more right than wrong. You might not get looked after in 4 hours when you think Saturday night is alright for fighting but if you went in to A&E with a heart attack or had been involved in serious vehicle accident you would get seen straight away - there is a clue in its name.
Agree re housing unfortunately this is a very densly populated country and we have a nimby attitude to extending potential urbanisation
If you have more social housing you get your rent controls
Parents should ensure their children eat properly it should be a responsibility you adopt when you decide to have children
State ownership will increase costs to the user and you will see a reduction in quality of service. You will also see a rise in union power - which will lead to increased costs to the end user.
Reverse CT rates and you will see a stagnation/fall in tax revenues - is that really what you want?
What kind of wealth tax do you propose - we have taxes on unearned income e.g. dividends, capital gains etc.

Wow let's put the economy into a permanent tail spin - house repossessing would be at collossal levels and virtually every retailer would be out of business.

You are definitely living in the wrong country. You could have all that in Russia, bit chilly this time of the year, plus life expectancy is a bit on the low side. But you can’t have everything. Unfortunately you are too late for Venezuela looks like after having years of free stuff they have run out of money.

Fiscal harmonisation would ensure all profits generated in a country would be taxed in that country that would see a huge increase in CT take as there would be no benefit in unrealistic transfer pricing or management charges or licencing fees etc.

I also suggested a relationship between the top earners and the mean in any business. Encouraging the very rich to give away their fortunes etc.


It seems to me your idea is through some form of state intervention "Social democracy" is to make humans behave differently to their natural state. Restrict the really clever, dumb everything down so the lowest have the same opportunities - yes in my view its completely unrealistic you have to cannot ignore the human desire to progress and beat other humans.

On Brexit I am for leaving - this is a unique country filled with very talented people the idea that it is suddenly going implode because we stop giving billions into a club over which we have very little influence doesn't make sense to me. Will we have short term pain, more than likely, will we come back stronger definitely.

Does state ownership really increase prices and reduce quality of service?? In my experience the complete opposite.

CT - need to place restrictions in interest relief and encourage financing via share capital.

Wealth tax - could start by extending the ATED tax to all dwellings and commercial property held by non-UK entities and individuals.

How about a quick comparison of the UK and Cuba. Cuba been a poor developing country, the UK the 5th richest in the world, we should compare very favourably.

In the UK there are 320,000 homeless people. 62% of people own their own home, around half of these via a mortgage, many of these mortgages are massive with eye watering amounts to be repaid. There is virtually no homelessness in Cuba, and 85% of Cubans own their homes. Mortgage payments may not exceed 10% of a household's combined income.

In the UK to go to university people borrow around £50,000. In Cuba university education is free.

In the UK we are unable to train enough doctors and nurses with 100,000 vacancies across the nhs.
According to the World Health Organization, Cuba is "known the world over for its ability to train excellent doctors and nurses who can then go out to help other countries in need". There are around 50,000 Cuban-trained health care workers aiding 66 nations. Cuba became the first country to eradicate mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Now I am not saying we should copy Cuba’s economic polices, but having homeless people, unaffordable housing and massive debts for getting a university education is a choice we have made, it doesn’t have to be like that.

I thought this made rather interesting reading. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/09 ... e-correct/

I thought this made rather interesting reading. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/09 ... e-correct/

Commie propaganda.

Quote ="Miro"I thought this made rather interesting reading. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/09 ... e-correct/'" Interesting piece, Tax planning in large corporations goes into the initial structure and into subsequent planning around acquisitions especially in any PE environment. It makes common sense, raise taxes when times are good lower them when you want to to encourage investment - Maynard-Keynes knew that in the 1930's. The key to any form of taxation system to work is it has to be seen to be equitable - increasing NI to invest in the health service would be acceptable to most. The problem with the last increase is that Labour simply used 50% of the additional revenue to increase existing salaries significantly. If the government said we are putting up NI 1% and this will be invested in more hospitals/equipment additional clinical staff, better software and operational waste was going be reduced by 5% a year happy days.

Quote ="Miro"I thought this made rather interesting reading. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/09 ... e-correct/'" Interesting piece, Tax planning in large corporations goes into the initial structure and into subsequent planning around acquisitions especially in any PE environment. It makes common sense, raise taxes when times are good lower them when you want to to encourage investment - Maynard-Keynes knew that in the 1930's. The key to any form of taxation system to work is it has to be seen to be equitable - increasing NI to invest in the health service would be acceptable to most. The problem with the last increase is that Labour simply used 50% of the additional revenue to increase existing salaries significantly. If the government said we are putting up NI 1% and this will be invested in more hospitals/equipment additional clinical staff, better software and operational waste was going be reduced by 5% a year happy days.

The biggest positive impact you could have on the NHS would be to fill all the existing vacancies for frontline patient facing posts and then recruit additional staff for the most under pressure services (this is all of them but some are in a more dire state than others).

The difficulty you have at the moment with filling these vacancies is that they require staff that are trained to a high standard. They’re not only nurses but specialists too like radiographers, OTs, physios etc. Then there’s the medics. There’s a real shortage of trained pharmacists, doctors consultants, psychologists etc. If one leaves it’s a huge challenge to recruit someone else. The kind of people that want these jobs are pretty special. They take years to train. They need to be paid better and as country we need to make training for these roles much easier so they aren’t dissuaded by student loans, ridiculously long hours, physical or verbal abuse. The removal of busaries has had a massive effect on nurse recruitment. If we want a decent NHS then we have to be prepared to pay for it. I’ve worked in it for a while and the past 8 years have seen huge cuts. My trust has cut over £3m from its budget in the past 3 years. This has had a big knock on effect on patients. The experienced staff are retiring and their posts are remaining vacant.

There simply aren’t any more efficiency services left.

One fairly simple solution, although the training takes time, would be to make every medical degree/ training course free, thereby encouraging a greater take-up from students who "dont really know what they want to do" and then of course, reward the personnel properly once they have qualified.



I konw it will blow the minds of some but, perhaps schools and colleges should be trying to guide youngsters into careesr where there are greater opportunities / vaccancies.
We live in a free world (nearly) and it's great that kids have a choice of what thet want to pursue after leaving but, where there are gaping holes in the workforce, there should be some additional "help" for those willing to train.

Until the early 90s they were free – there were 100% maintenance grants for students – not loans, and certainly not tuition fees. I would say the needs are so great that this should be brought back for those qualifications that are needed for the vacancies we need to fill.

With the reduction in applicants we’ve seen over the past couple of years this is a dire situation that needs remedying. It won’t be helped if EU citizens decide to go home too.

Quote ="Bullseye" With the reduction in applicants we’ve seen over the past couple of years this is a dire situation that needs remedying. It won’t be helped if EU citizens decide to go home too.'" The NHS has been hit by a double whammy. One is the conservatives not properly funding the NHS, the other is the drop in EU applicants for vacant posts following the Brexit vote. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-40248366

Quote ="Bullseye" With the reduction in applicants we’ve seen over the past couple of years this is a dire situation that needs remedying. It won’t be helped if EU citizens decide to go home too.'" The NHS has been hit by a double whammy. One is the conservatives not properly funding the NHS, the other is the drop in EU applicants for vacant posts following the Brexit vote. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-40248366

Are you seriously suggesting that the NHS is as lean as can be or just your NHS trust?

One of the biggest gains the NHS can get is to stop the abuse of its services by its patients - whether its patients not turning up for appointments or patients turning up at A&E when that is not appropriate.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Are you seriously suggesting that the NHS is as lean as can be or just your NHS trust? One of the biggest gains the NHS can get is to stop the abuse of its services by its patients - whether its patients not turning up for appointments or patients turning up at A&E when that is not appropriate.'" The NHS is the most efficient health system going https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-40608253

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Are you seriously suggesting that the NHS is as lean as can be or just your NHS trust? One of the biggest gains the NHS can get is to stop the abuse of its services by its patients - whether its patients not turning up for appointments or patients turning up at A&E when that is not appropriate.'" The NHS is the most efficient health system going https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-40608253