Socialism has nothing to do with caring - Socialism is about state control and making decisions centrally that should in theory are better for the majority. Sadly the theory is not deliverable in practise or hasn't been anywhere as yet

Capitalism is about protecting investors so that wealth can be generated through good ideas that need seed capital. The biggest charitable donators are serial capitalists it how they have the wealth to give away. Capitalists know they have to engage the best people to drive wealth generation - they have to offer something that is better to secure them.

If everything is state owned there is no incentive which is why it doesn't work. It was no shock that we had a terrible transport network, a disaster of a car manufacturer, a telecoms provider that was so poor it took months to even get a phone installed etc. when everything was state owned - happy days!!

I know you think that wearing red underpants, sock and being to sing "keep the red flag flying" puts you on a higher moral plain - sadly that isn't borne out in anywhere apart from your tiny mind.

Cheers ZZB.
You, once again you only use extremes of socialism to make your point but, I've come to expect nothing else.
Capital am is the drive to make money at all costs, be they human or environmental. Those chasing the green dollar tend to care for.................... the dollar and not for the welfare of those who may be casualties along the way.

Of course, not ALL companies work in that way and if you go back in the history books, there are great examples of businessmen who ran huge empires AND looked after the welfare of their staff, John Cadbury, Titus Salt etc, who realised that if they looked after their workforce, everyone gained.
Sadly this ethos had largely disappeared and their modern day equivalents, tend to work on the theory that "if you dont want to work here, there are plenty of others that will and they have tried damned hard to trample over employment law and used strong arm tactics to bully their staff into submission.

You have to laugh, when you cite the railways as your example, which despite the derision of Corbyn, when he suggested taking the industry back into the public domain, the Tories are now "stealing" his policy, having given up on the idea of "the market" improving this particular industry.

Btw, you must tell me when I have ever advocated "everything" being state run.

I think there is an element there of comparing the best of one thing with the worst of another. That is a rhetorical habit that we nearly all share, so no biggie.

For me the real issue isn't currently really about socialism as you define it above versus capitalism. It is really, for most people in the anything other than the very long term, more of a fight for a better functioning democratic capitalism than we have now. Without some of the poorly aligned incentives, the ever greater concentration of wealth and power, or the crises and absurdities that affect or arise from it and can ultimately lead to major historical dislocations. No system is perfect and socialism is certainly not immune similar issues. However, a lot of capitalist theoreticians are worried and 'lefties' have started citing the Financial Times. To fix things, we have to keep identifying the flaws, always - that isn't the same as attacking the system, and in some ways it is the reverse.

You see Mild Rover you know your stuff,come across as well reasoned and dont spin poop to serve your point ,a pleasure to read your posts

Very kind.

Most people, right and left, liberal and conservative mean well enough. It’s fun to be outraged sometimes though, and I’m not above that from time to time.

Piers Morgan’s Life Stories



dreary me

Possibly aiming for public sympathy etc but not convinced this is a good move

Herein lies the problem with you lefties - you think all company owners are just arrogant egotists who see the people who work for them as disposable collateral. You are so wrong - the better the people you employ the better your business will be - finding and retaining talent is a very challenging task. Just to suggest if they don't like it go is quite frankly bull.

So I start a business it becomes very successful - what do I do then - I can't simply say I making more than I can ever spend so I will take my foot off the gas - because if I do that I soon wont have more money than I can ever spend. Unless I move faster than my competitors they will overtake me and then what happens I get smaller I lose all my good people and my business is terminally damaged.

The railways in this country were a laughing stock under public ownership - as was virtually every other public-owned business - out of date, inefficient, under invested, poor staff moral, union dominated etc - why would you want to return to this? May be I have been lucky but I cannot remember last getting a train that was more than 5 minutes late - yesterday I went to Manchester for the cricket trains on time - that was Transpennine.

I don't think the Tories his Corbyn's idea - there's is a very different vision - public owned infrastructure/tickets, private companies run the trains.

Most people want a version of a mixed economy it is how it is paid i.e. how do you generate sufficient funds for these publically owned operations correctly. I am not sure that the government owning everything and giving out pocket money is the right way - it certainly hasn't proved to be the case anywhere as yet.

Covid has shown how scary things are when the government controls things too tightly - those on here who think this is a better way than greater freedoms are frankly mad - but of course like Brexit they know best and anyone who can't see that is even madder.

Equally, I am not sure that a corrupt plutocracy, based on populism and privilege is the right way. But just because that is what the Conservative party represents to me, doesn’t make it a fair or accurate representation of your position.




COVID has been scary because of the virus killing people. We had political leadership deeply ill suited to the task (and yes, Corbyn would have been bad too), but I’d still take that over a focus on libertarianism under these specific circumstances.

Greater freedoms, we’d agree in principle but we’re probably thinking about different freedoms on something like Brexit. You might celebrate the national freedom to diverge from EU regulations, whereas I might regret the loss of personal freedom to live and work in the EU.

Personal freedoms for me are - having who I want in my house and garden, being able to visit my parents when it suits us both, being able to travel where and when I want, being able to have physical contact with another person who is happy to have physical contact with me, being able to exercise more than once a day etc. these were all basic human rights that the government decided we were grown up enough to manage and banned. I have to wear a mask in certain circumstances - there is very little evidence to suggest they actually help etc.

How much wealth is created by mates of Boris very little - whilst its far from ideal it isn't a game changer in bigger scheme of things. Corbyn was going to repeal all the union legislation to accommodate his union funders - that would have had significant impact on everyday working life.

Oh dear
You do know that I've been a company director for over 25 years and own my business dont you ??

Just because I believe in people paying their taxes, based on their level of income and not ducking, diving and avoiding their share, doesn't make me a communist or loony leftie.

Some of us have a strong sense of equality and social responsibility and are not driven by GREED

I think most people think like you in respect of people paying their way - at the top end the government is taking close to 50% of people's earnings same as Germany & France higher than the US, Japan - The top 1% pay 30% of all the IT take, how much more do you think is equitable?

The tax dodgers are few in the true scheme of events and it is primarily international businesses where the loopholes appear - so unless you are prepared have one taxation system across the world there will always be challenges.

Well, in a highly globalised economy, a global taxation policy wouldn't be an unreasonable proposal. IMO, the answer isn't necessarily a higher rate of taxation, but a fairer system of taxation. For example, you can move money anywhere you want in order to avoid tax, however, you can't move customers. So instead of taxing companies based on where the money is, tax them based on where their customers are. For example, If Amazon make £100m in profits in a year, and 10% of their customers are based in the UK, then Amazon would be required to pay tax on £10m at the UK rates of taxation.

Something like this wouldn't be that difficult to implement, it's just the political will is lacking, especially in this country where providing access to our offshore tax havens is one of the most appealing aspects of our economy to 'investors', and in many ways props it up.

Your idea sounds great on the face of things.
However, business is not straight forward, especially for companies trading and with bases in different countries.
For instance, if you had a base in the UK and one in the USA and one of these businesses was losing money, with the other making a reasonable return, would you allow that company to mitigate it's losses in the other country and referring this to your example of Amazon, how would you allow them to offset investment costs in new territories against well established bases elsewhere.
As I said, far from straightforward and where would you go with businesses that relied on their sister companies as far as manufacture was concerned. Say a car manufacturer, pulling in components from multiple parts of the company to manufacture vehicles in a particular country.
Where should they take any profit and where should they pay their tax ?

If you base it on total global profits for the company overall, it wouldn't matter if the company had bases in different countries. The only factors are the total global profit and the percentage of the company's customer base in each country.

Nice idea.
However, the Americans are already kicking up a stink at a potential 1% levy for on line sales in the UK.
There isn't a hope in hell of them sacrificing potential tax contributions form some of their US based global companies.

Not a chance - say you are a big Pharma and all your R&D is in the UK - these costs can be billions so how do you correctly redistribute those costs to accurately reflect them in the cost of the drugs - accrual concept for those accountants amongst us? When drugs go in to manufacture the profits are huge so the profitability looks great but you must include the development costs to get a true reflection. Transfer pricing is a very tricky subject and get the correct balance is an unenviable task.

So is moving money through a web of 100s of shell companies in order to avoid tax and launder money, yet it's at the heart of our current financial system, and companies bend over backwards to do it.
There are things we can do to make our financial system fairer without raising taxes, it all comes down to political will. Sadly, the politicians are as culpable as the bankers, accountants and criminals that perpetuate this system.

There are a minority of legitimate businesses that behave in the way you suggest - it is expensive and is not without risk. Illegal businesses are doing this stuff all the time - their profits are huge and they have to afford the skills required to make these actions pay.

If all you were dealing with were internal companies I would agree - unfortunately that is not the case and it is these bigger international companies who stand to gain most from internal shifting of costs. Our needs as a nation are not the same as say Germany or Japan so to deliver what is a very reasonable suggestion all would need to be aligned and that will never be the case. Even in the UK - Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man all have different tax regimes.

Its everywhere though ,take your average construction site ,90% will be self employed working for the same companies using ir35 or limited company status ,its all tax avoidance
Your small to medium company owners will use the most tax efficient means possible ,ie low weekly wage with dividends paid and taxed at corporation tax levels

It might well be a minority of companies overall, however, we're talking about billions in lost tax revenue per year for most countries, it would be incredibly popular with their electorates, and of course it wouldn't be straight forward, but nothing regarding international finance, trade, or politics is.

I completely concur - perhaps I am a bit more sceptical.

Quote ="Zoo Zoo Boom"I completely concur - perhaps I am a bit more sceptical.'" Well, it's a start https://www.reuters.com/business/g7-nat ... 021-06-05/

Quote ="Zoo Zoo Boom"I completely concur - perhaps I am a bit more sceptical.'" Well, it's a start https://www.reuters.com/business/g7-nat ... 021-06-05/

Well Labour got a whopping 622 votes in the Chesham and Amersham by-election ,is Starmers time as leader coming to an end ,and if so who could they replace him with?

Labour didn't campaign in this by election, it was a Tory vs Lib Dem choice.
Starmer is only interested in Batley right now.