Got a spare €400m ?

nathancom

bernithebiker wrote:

nathancom wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

nathancom wrote:

I don't have any nostalgia for a system that relied on political coercion to establish its economic model, one of forced collectivism, one that led to the death of 50 million through war, famine, purges and labour camps, or one that murdered individuals for writing books that did not tow the party line. It was an authoritarian abomination, however, to paint the 70 years of Soviet rule as one long queue for food is simply not true.

Individuals did take pride in the Soviet state, it's ideals and aims, even those who didn't had no freedom of dissent. People did achieve many great things within science, arts, music, engineering, architecture, literature during the Soviet regime and it was a more productive Russia than the one we see now, which is little more than an oil company. There are many paradoxes in history.

Even today, the communist party in Russia polled 17% in the last presidential election and 23% in the parliamentary elections. Many individuals lived good, comfortable lives during the communist period, especially compared to the ones they have lived during the downfall of communism and since then under a capitalist/mafia state.

I suggest you take a look at the 2nd World War, where the Russian leadership had a staggering disregard for the lives of it's people, and literally threw them at the German guns. So many millions died, it makes the war in Western Europe look like a picnic.

And by the way, stay calm, no need to go spitting bile at people like me and SteveO that disagree with you.

I was only 'spitting bile' at you, not the other guy, since you are asking irrelevant questions based on a belief that I am espousing something I have explicitly stated that I am not and given the reasons why not. You are either being voluntarily stupid or involuntarily stupid. Soviet conduct in WW2 and the almost endless crimes against the Russian people perpetrated by the Stalinist regime is well known by almost everyone. This has no bearing on whether the Soviet economy was functioning in the 1960s and 1970s, and whether it provides any counterbalance to Capitalist methods for recycling wealth.

I am perfectly calm but telling me that Stalinist regime did bad stuff is like telling me the world is round...irrelevant and obvious.

Well, maybe could you refrain from spitting bile at me then?

I am simply pointing out that Soviet behaviour during WWII and subsequently during the Cold War, and the fact those that could were fleeing the country, does not point to a happy, functioning, socio-economic model. If Soviet scientists / athletes etc. were so happy and patriotic, why did so many defect the moment they touched down on Western soil?

And if the riches were being so nicely spread amongst the population, why were the vast majority of them living in poverty? (or relative poverty compared to Western lifestyles).

Well maybe you can refrain from being irrelevant and over sensitive then?

I guess people defected because they as individuals didn't approve of communism or didn't approve of the crimes being committed in the name of communism or didn't approve of a system of government that relied on bending the will of individuals to the 'collective will' whoever decided what the 'collective will' was. I think I would have wanted to leave as well. Despite this many people supported the regime and led decent lives, to such an extent that the Communist party have always maintained a significant block of votes in elections. Similarly you describe many French people wishing to escape France now yet you remain, I guess different people make different choices...

Why do you believe they lived in such poverty? Sure there was a lack of food and other goods as the system collapsed under the strain of trying to keep up with USA militarily, but in the 50s-70s it was a reasonably prosperous country with a large manufacturing base, and with a set of clients states and colonial possessions that acted as a captive market for that manufacturing base just as with the British Empire and India.

nathancom

Mikey23 wrote:

Erm... So up to speed now. So if I'm right, you worthy minds have spent the best part of ten days debating the rights and wrongs of society (agin) and slagging off vtech (Again) till your fingers are raw and bleeding?

So would the time have been better spent getting off your sweet butts, getting out there and making a small difference in your local community? :-)

Sounds like you in the thread about kids going on holiday during term time.

bernithebiker

nathancom wrote:

Well maybe you can refrain from being irrelevant and over sensitive then?

I guess people defected because they as individuals didn't approve of communism or didn't approve of the crimes being committed in the name of communism or didn't approve of a system of government that relied on bending the will of individuals to the 'collective will' whoever decided what the 'collective will' was. I think I would have wanted to leave as well. Despite this many people supported the regime and led decent lives, to such an extent that the Communist party have always maintained a significant block of votes in elections. Similarly you describe many French people wishing to escape France now yet you remain, I guess different people make different choices...

Why do you believe they lived in such poverty? Sure there was a lack of food and other goods as the system collapsed under the strain of trying to keep up with USA militarily, but in the 50s-70s it was a reasonably prosperous country with a large manufacturing base, and with a set of clients states and colonial possessions that acted as a captive market for that manufacturing base just as with the British Empire and India.

Are you the judge of what is relevant or irrelevant? And a dislike of playground style name-calling is not being 'sensitive'.

As for France, I have already clearly stated that if I could move I would. As soon as Hollande was voted in I knew we were in for disaster, and I have been proven right. The reasons for not moving are twofold;
1. Kids at a delicate age at school.
2. Assets in France that are currently difficult to liquidate (thanks Francois!)
I guess I should have seen the writing on the wall and got out when it would have been a lot easier, circa 2010.
I love France as a country, but it's tragic to see it bleed itself to death like this.

Back to Russia - such a vast country with such vast resources; oil, metals, agriculture, etc. shouldn't the population have been amongst the richest in the world?

nathancom

bernithebiker wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Well maybe you can refrain from being irrelevant and over sensitive then?

I guess people defected because they as individuals didn't approve of communism or didn't approve of the crimes being committed in the name of communism or didn't approve of a system of government that relied on bending the will of individuals to the 'collective will' whoever decided what the 'collective will' was. I think I would have wanted to leave as well. Despite this many people supported the regime and led decent lives, to such an extent that the Communist party have always maintained a significant block of votes in elections. Similarly you describe many French people wishing to escape France now yet you remain, I guess different people make different choices...

Why do you believe they lived in such poverty? Sure there was a lack of food and other goods as the system collapsed under the strain of trying to keep up with USA militarily, but in the 50s-70s it was a reasonably prosperous country with a large manufacturing base, and with a set of clients states and colonial possessions that acted as a captive market for that manufacturing base just as with the British Empire and India.

Are you the judge of what is relevant or irrelevant? And a dislike of playground style name-calling is not being 'sensitive'.

As for France, I have already clearly stated that if I could move I would. As soon as Hollande was voted in I knew we were in for disaster, and I have been proven right. The reasons for not moving are twofold;
1. Kids at a delicate age at school.
2. Assets in France that are currently difficult to liquidate (thanks Francois!)
I guess I should have seen the writing on the wall and got out when it would have been a lot easier, circa 2010.
I love France as a country, but it's tragic to see it bleed itself to death like this.

Back to Russia - such a vast country with such vast resources; oil, metals, agriculture, etc. shouldn't the population have been amongst the richest in the world?

I don't think you can really blame the Communists for the backwardness of Russia compared to the West. Feudalism persisted in Russia until the emancipation of serfs in 1861. The communists managed a remarkable pace of development for them to be able to compete with Germany in WW2 though as we know now much of this was done with slave labour in the gulags, at the cost of millions of lives during the farm collectivisation famines and so on. Still to go from a primarily rural feudal state to sending the first man into space all within 90 years is some journey.

Mikey23

@n... Fair point! I suppose it's all what you are passionate about and interested in. I have little understanding of some of the stuff you guys are bringing up so it's probably better to keep my snout out. Having said that I can't see that discussing the merits and demerits of different political systems has an awful lot of point as things are as they are and ain't going to change in our lifetime unless the revolution comes. those guys are far too smart to let that happen

Stevo_666

Mikey23 wrote:

Having said that I can't see that discussing the merits and demerits of different political systems has an awful lot of point as things are as they are and ain't going to change in our lifetime unless the revolution comes. those guys are far too smart to let that happen

I alluded to that point earlier in the thread. There are a few forumites who are going to be angry and frustrated for donekys years. It's better to be happy with the status quo

Mikey23

Hence my comment earlier. Inequalities, injustice and unremitting crud will always be with us so perhaps it's an idea to make a tiny difference where you can ie in your local community

pinno

The thread that just keeps on giving...

@Berniethebiker. This is not personal, just an observation.
I had a look at your cottages and prices - phew, way out of my price range. I guess you are trying to attract the corporate elite through your previous existence?
I also presume that you are amongst the very comfortable. Capitalism, as I have said before, is good for the few. It makes perfect sense for the 'comfortable' to vote Tory and maintain the status quo. You have to consider then that globally, you are in the minority. The rich clientelle that you patronise have become that way because of the inherent heirarchy that capitalism both needs and feeds upon: a pyramid to which only a few can exist at the top.
I have never met a poor person who is keen on right wing policy. I have never met well off people who say that they are 'more than comfortable' and would gladly give away some of their wealth because they are only 'comfortable' by virtue of the exploitative, often parasitic nature of unfettered, out of control capitalism.
No longer is there a balance where Socialism acts as a counterweight to free market capitalism - and globally, millions are paying the price. Ironic, that the days of communist Russia are over and that the hegemony of capitalism prevails without re-course, moral standing, checks, balances and any sense of fairness running wild like petri-dish bacteria in a global climate bereft of moral philosophy.

Mikey23

But to be fair, Bernie has said we can camp on his lawn which should keep costs down a bit!

Mikey23

... As long as it isn't in term time

sloppyschleckonds

Mikey23 wrote:

But to be fair, Bernie has said we can camp on his lawn which should keep costs down a bit!

Mikey23

With apologies to Bernie

viewtopic.php?f=40003&t=12954059

bernithebiker

Thanks for the moral support Mikey!

I've always said that cyclists are more than welcome to camp at our place, and have offered decent discounts to anyone on here for our houses.

As for our prices, yes they are at the top end. This is because we put a lot of effort and investment into the houses and we are competing with 4 and 5 star hotels. That's just the way it is; we're not trying to attract 'the corporate elite' whatever that is. We get, English, French, German, Dutch, Belgian, Americans, some rich some not, quite a spectrum.

As for being very comfortable, not really. All our money is in the houses, and costs here (labour, taxes) are very high.

If there were to be another Erika type oil spill, we would be f*&ked. There is no safety net. And nor would I expect one.
My business, my risk. If it makes money great, if it fails, though sh!t for me, none else's problem.

bernithebiker

Also worth pointing out, seeing as some would portray me as a rapacious, exploitative right winger, that we pay our staff well above the odds, (thereby incurring huge social charges), and give out bonuses at the end of season.
As a result they are all very happy and stay with us.
So it is possible to vote right, and still have respect for your employees.

In France, if you're' made redundant you get almost your full salary for 2 years (Yes, even if you're on 60kE+ a year). This is crazy in a country that is badly in debt. Many people in this situation simply take a year off - wouldn't you? This is currently being looked at and the proposal is simply to reduce the term to 18 months. But the unions are flat refusing any change at all. This is but one example of many, of socialism, great in theory, gone wrong.

Mikey23

Still hoping to visit... Not made a decision for this years cycling adventure which will probably be around May but not the school holidays. Perhaps that will be the plan?

Stevo_666

bernithebiker wrote:

Also worth pointing out, seeing as some would portray me as a rapacious, exploitative right winger, that we pay our staff well above the odds, (thereby incurring huge social charges), and give out bonuses at the end of season.
As a result they are all very happy and stay with us.
So it is possible to vote right, and still have respect for your employees.

In France, if you're' made redundant you get almost your full salary for 2 years (Yes, even if you're on 60kE+ a year). This is crazy in a country that is badly in debt. Many people in this situation simply take a year off - wouldn't you? This is currently being looked at and the proposal is simply to reduce the term to 18 months. But the unions are flat refusing any change at all. This is but one example of many, of socialism, great in theory, gone wrong.

Bernie, nice website - really professionally done 8)

We are having these sorts of problems where I work (evil multinational). We're trying to restructure because the French business is persistently loss making. Despite offering over 30 months salary as pay offs, support and assistance with finding a new job etc etc and the Government approving the plan after going through the court process, the unions are still objecting. They are having intermittent strikes and mounting another legal challenge. To cap that off the French government (who probably realise they are making it hard for businesses) are making it as difficult as possible for business to get out by insisting on compensation for any transfer of risks or functions out of France even if its not fee earning functions. At the same time the French tax authority has tried to assess us for EUR 10m plus 'abuse of law penalties' on a totally spurious separate point, basically trying to harrass us into settling, but we still have to take them to tribunal and maybe court at considerable expense. Still, will keep me busy.

At a different place, the kidnapped the boss for trying to do the same sort of thing. Love the quote from the boss of the other outfit who refused to buy it off Goodyear after the French Govt tried to get someone else daft enough to take it on
http://www.cityam.com/article/1389058552/boss-napping-french-tyre-factory-row-over-closure-grows

And they wonder why nobody wants to invest Like you say, nice idea but just doesn't work in the real world. They're going to learn the hard way if they aren't careful.

pinno

bernithebiker wrote:

Also worth pointing out, seeing as some would portray me as a rapacious, exploitative right winger, that we pay our staff well above the odds, (thereby incurring huge social charges), and give out bonuses at the end of season.

I was putting it into the context of Capitalism - you took it personally which I said not to. You do not have to justify your means, all I wanted you to do was reflect on it. You have a right to charge what you like.

My rent is in the region of £450 per month, quite average for rural Scotland. How on earth am i supposed to afford all the travel and food for a week in one of your properties which is 3 to 4 times my monthly rent??! So however you treat your staff, however hard you work, however tentative your situation, you are, without doubt, appealing to the more well off end of the spectrum. Certainly, above average wage earners. I expect that all your custom is White collar, upper management.

Back on topic.

Capitalism in its current form promotes selfishness - you have to. "You have to look after Number 1". The media and the advertisers push it "what can you get?", "How such and such can put you in control?", "television when you want it", "Deals for you". All designed to massage the egocentric hubs of mass consumerism driven by the hedonistic individual intent on carving a stronger foothold in the current; too strong for the weak.
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded - through high unemployment and a systematic privatisation and deconstruction of the welfare state. It is also because it is a rat race - whilst everybody is trying to look after number one, it means trampling on someone else's head to get up the ladder and away from the insecurity of potential impoverishment.
Unfortunately, this hedonism is contrary to community, social fabric and any form of collectivism and collective responsibility.

bernithebiker

@Steveo, interesting, but sadly stories like this are legion. France has also brought in a personal exit tax, making it harder for people to leave - they can see the writing on the wall and are trying to lock people in. Scary.

@Pinarello, there are many houses out there half the price of ours that are almost as nice. You can also rent gites for as low as 350E/week, so there is a full range for all price brackets. Most of our customers are amazed that people like us spend over £1000 on a bicycle.......

In 2012, what France needed was a president that would take a machete to the red tape, the massively generous welfare state (which is chronically abused), and get France attractive for investment again. Instead it got a floppy idiot, that has taken every single wrong decision to further push the country into the mire. It is classic socialism gone wrong. If France is lucky, worldwide growth will drag France with it and save the day. If not, things are going to get messy....

Stevo_666

bernithebiker wrote:

Instead it got a floppy idiot

If recent press is to be believed, the one accusation you can't level at Hollande is being 'floppy' Sadly everything else he does is a bit of a disaster for France.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

Capitalism in its current form promotes selfishness - you have to. "You have to look after Number 1". The media and the advertisers push it "what can you get?", "How such and such can put you in control?", "television when you want it", "Deals for you". All designed to massage the egocentric hubs of mass consumerism driven by the hedonistic individual intent on carving a stronger foothold in the current; too strong for the weak.
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded - through high unemployment and a systematic privatisation and deconstruction of the welfare state. It is also because it is a rat race - whilst everybody is trying to look after number one, it means trampling on someone else's head to get up the ladder and away from the insecurity of potential impoverishment.
Unfortunately, this hedonism is contrary to community, social fabric and any form of collectivism and collective responsibility.

That is such a wildly incorrect stereotype that it is laughable.
I own a company and can categorically state that none of what you have written in that quote applies to me, or my company. It may apply to some, and await the examples with nonchalance, but it merely serves to fit your point of view.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Capitalism in its current form promotes selfishness - you have to. "You have to look after Number 1". The media and the advertisers push it "what can you get?", "How such and such can put you in control?", "television when you want it", "Deals for you". All designed to massage the egocentric hubs of mass consumerism driven by the hedonistic individual intent on carving a stronger foothold in the current; too strong for the weak.
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded - through high unemployment and a systematic privatisation and deconstruction of the welfare state. It is also because it is a rat race - whilst everybody is trying to look after number one, it means trampling on someone else's head to get up the ladder and away from the insecurity of potential impoverishment.
Unfortunately, this hedonism is contrary to community, social fabric and any form of collectivism and collective responsibility.

That is such a wildly incorrect stereotype that it is laughable.
I own a company and can categorically state that none of what you have written in that quote applies to me, or my company. It may apply to some, and await the examples with nonchalance, but it merely serves to fit your point of view.

Without company directors where would we be ? We need entrepreneurs to build jobs, create growth and build for a better overall future. The problem is that you will always get people who for whatever reason won't approve. It's a shame but it's the way it is. These same people are the reason things don't get done in this country and why the spiral is a downwards motion but you can't let them drag you with them. In a way that does kind of give a view of "look after No1" but so be it.
Countries need risk takers to lead the way. Without them we would be doomed.

pinno

VTech wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Capitalism in its...
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded

That is such a wildly incorrect stereotype that it is laughable, nothing really interseting to back what I say up bolloc.

Without company directors..

I was referring to my previous point that you are most likely to vote Tory if you amongst the 'comfortable'.
I have no gripe with company directors. In fact I have no gripe with the well paid.
My concerns are rampant, uncontrolled capitalism, the super rich and those not paying enough tax.

VTech

pinarello001 wrote:

VTech wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Capitalism in its...
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded

That is such a wildly incorrect stereotype that it is laughable, nothing really interseting to back what I say up bolloc.

Without company directors..

I was referring to my previous point that you are most likely to vote Tory if you amongst the 'comfortable'.
I have no gripe with company directors. In fact I have no gripe with the well paid.
My concerns are rampant, uncontrolled capitalism, the super rich and those not paying enough tax.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as if I were attacking what you wrote.
I agree 100%, people should pay a fair amount. I just see it in a way that we charge too much and that we don't have a system where leeway can be given to get a piece of the action.
We should adopt the IRS methods of the USA and I am certain we would be better off. Of course only some of their methods, especially the one where they work with corperates to strike a deal on taxation so that they invest.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

VTech wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Capitalism in its...
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded

That is such a wildly incorrect stereotype that it is laughable, nothing really interseting to back what I say up bolloc.

Without company directors..

I was referring to my previous point that you are most likely to vote Tory if you amongst the 'comfortable'.
I have no gripe with company directors. In fact I have no gripe with the well paid.
My concerns are rampant, uncontrolled capitalism, the super rich and those not paying enough tax.

That was very nicely cropped so as to dilute my point, and change yours that I quoted in full.

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Capitalism in its current form promotes selfishness - you have to. "You have to look after Number 1". The media and the advertisers push it "what can you get?", "How such and such can put you in control?", "television when you want it", "Deals for you". All designed to massage the egocentric hubs of mass consumerism driven by the hedonistic individual intent on carving a stronger foothold in the current; too strong for the weak.
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded - through high unemployment and a systematic privatisation and deconstruction of the welfare state. It is also because it is a rat race - whilst everybody is trying to look after number one, it means trampling on someone else's head to get up the ladder and away from the insecurity of potential impoverishment.
Unfortunately, this hedonism is contrary to community, social fabric and any form of collectivism and collective responsibility.

That is such a wildly incorrect stereotype that it is laughable.ever thinks or acts in a way that could be described by phrases such as
I own a company and can categorically state that none of what you have written in that quote applies to me, or my company. It may apply to some, and await the examples with nonchalance, but it merely serves to fit your point of view.

So you and no one who works for you thinks or acts in a way that would fit phrase such as those above:
"You have to look after Number 1"
"what can you get?"
"How such and such can put you in control?"
"Deals for you"
I guess you must own the Church then.

Pina is on the money, we have been encouraged to the utmost selfishness and individualism by a consumerist propaganda that is continually bombarding us. Do you know we are subject to on average 1000 adverts per day, it is no surprise that this has radically altered our culture so that we are constantly wanting something we do not have.

I love how the Tory boys claim company directors are so deserving of the rewards of the hard labour of others. Now money is seen as a sign of your moral worth, the poor are lazy and the rich are their saviours just waiting to give them a job as an act of charity.

There is no great trick in being an entrepreneur - generally it requires either a) money from another source b) a strong enough desire to get rich c) a willingness to screw over your fellow human beings to get rich d) a combination of the above.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Back on topic.

Capitalism in its current form promotes selfishness - you have to. "You have to look after Number 1". The media and the advertisers push it "what can you get?", "How such and such can put you in control?", "television when you want it", "Deals for you". All designed to massage the egocentric hubs of mass consumerism driven by the hedonistic individual intent on carving a stronger foothold in the current; too strong for the weak.
No one is saying en masse, hang on a minute, do I really need this? Do I have to act the way I do? Is continual 'growth' sustainable? Who is missing out whilst we gain?

The safety nets are being eroded - through high unemployment and a systematic privatisation and deconstruction of the welfare state. It is also because it is a rat race - whilst everybody is trying to look after number one, it means trampling on someone else's head to get up the ladder and away from the insecurity of potential impoverishment.
Unfortunately, this hedonism is contrary to community, social fabric and any form of collectivism and collective responsibility.

Still waiting for the viable alternative in a bit of detail....
Or a country that uses what you think would work? Quite a lot of the regimes that use alternative methods are either p!ss poor/dictatorships/long gone or some combination of the above. A few that are around that people might quote are doing so due to special circumstances - like Venzuela: only surviving because of a huge stash of oil.

The problem with anything you might suggest to stop people acting in their own best interests goes so far against the norms of human nature to look after yourself and your family that it would require a totalitarian regime to enforce it. You say you don't agree with systems like commumism but that is what you'd need to force it to work - for as long as it might last.

Question: if it's a choice of a society where everyone is poor, or 80% are poor and 20% well off, which would you choose?

And honestly, if you can't take advertising with a pinch of salt then you shouldn't be let out unsupervised. BTW without advertising and sponsorship there would be almost no TV, no radio, no free websites, no professional footy...etc etc

Be careful what you wish for.

pblakeney

nathancom wrote:

So you and no one who works for you thinks or acts in a way that would fit phrase such as those above:
"You have to look after Number 1"
"what can you get?"
"How such and such can put you in control?"
"Deals for you"
I guess you must own the Church then.

I love how the Tory boys claim company directors are so deserving of the rewards of the hard labour of others. Now money is seen as a sign of your moral worth, the poor are lazy and the rich are their saviours just waiting to give them a job as an act of charity.

There is no great trick in being an entrepreneur - generally it requires either a) money from another source b) a strong enough desire to get rich c) a willingness to screw over your fellow human beings to get rich d) a combination of the above.

So many points to address.

With reference to your first set of points; I cannot, and will not, speak for my employees but none of those apply to how I run my company.

In my humble opinion, the Church is much more oppressive about their financies but that is another debate.

I have been running my company for decades now and have never made anyone redundant, including times of recession. further more, not one member of staff has left. You simply cannot run a business long term in manner of which you describe.

Lastly, my company was built from the ground up from my own pocket using money saved while working as an employee. I simply saw a business opportunity to work with greater personal freedom and built on that success leading to employing people as the company expanded.

You will get no apology for that from me sir!

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Back on topic.

Capitalism...

The safety nets are being eroded...

Still waiting for the viable alternative in a bit of detail....

Already stated that - A mixed economy: Scandinavian model. The Germans do well because of their investment in infrastructure and re-investment levels, both corporate and non-corporate of on average 4-6% as opposed to the UK with it's paultry 1.5%. I have also mentioned the high cost/low wage economy in the UK - this is critical. Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy are all low cost/low wage economies. Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland are all high wage/high cost societies with coincidentally high standards of living.
We are alone in Europe with our low wage/high cost economy.
S still do not agree with your ideas on taxation. We want Scandinavian levels of education and health care but we are not prepared to pay for it.

Our taxation system is regressive. We pay probably as much as the Scandinavians in back door, indirect taxation, skewed to suit the better off.

Mr and Mrs Smith earn 20k per annum combined income, above WTC's threshold.
£9440 is tax free.
Tax and NI contributions on the remaining £10560 is approx. £2640
Road tax 1 car: £180 pa
Council tax: £1100 pa
Fuel Duty on £45 per week petrol: £2035.80 pa
Grocery VAT bill on £80 food shopping per week: £208 pa
Fuel tax on annual energy bill of £1200 - £96
TV License - £145.50
Arbitrary VAT bill on car parts, goods, services, repairs £500

Total tax bill: £6095.30 - percentage of income: 34.5%

Mortgage: £800 per month. Expendable income, £4304 pa or £87 per week.

Mr and Mrs Smythe, combined income. £39k per annum (below 40% threshold same outgoings as Mr and Mrs Smith,

Income Tax: £5030. Total tax bill: £9295.30 - percentage of income 23%

Expendable income: £386 per week.

Low wage - High cost economy with regressive taxation system.

It is not necessarily about political ideology, it is about a culture that is lecherous. We can cure a huge number of ills through fiscal policies that are fairer and we need to close tax loopholes. Amazon and Starbucks make millions in profit and pay sweet FA. Wrong, wrong, wrong - totally wrong.
I listened in earnest to a report about Thames Water who do not re-invest but pay huge dividends to avoid tax on their profits. Essential public services screwing joe public whilst paying very little tax and they are not alone.
I do not know for the life of me why you keep reverting back to Communism and Totalitarianism. Maybe that is what your fear is rather then a rational debate about the problems with rampant greed and over consumption of resources.

You have failed to address my key questions about the over consumption of resources and sustainability and how capitalism is driving that consumption.
You make statements about human nature that are not true - capitalism has split society ever since the Industrial Revolution. It has also been the driver of population increase. If what you say is true that 'I'm alright Jack' attitude, why isn't everybody leaving Sweden, Germany and Japan in their droves?
You also bang on about 'Regimes' ?! Can we talk about taxation, imbalances, inequalities, consumerism, materialism, resource depletion, the super rich without retorting to paranoid fears of some sort of dictatorship?
Fiscal and housing policy can shape every aspect of our lives without mention of some irrational Orwelian scenario.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

...Read the above...

Oh dear!

There are a few errors in your examples.

There is no VAT on groceries. Unless you are buying junk food which is a personal choice.

Running a car is a personal choice, and the costs will again depend on choice.

The wealthier of the two examples will likely have chosen a more expensive house and car so their disposable income will not be dissimilar. Again, this is personal choice.

But most importantly, Thames Water can only pay dividends on profits after tax. If they only pay a little tax, then there can only be a little profit to give to shareholders. If you can explain to HMRC and myself as to how I can take dividends instead of paying Company Tax, then I am all ears (eyes?).

You are quite correct about Starbucks etc. though.

bernithebiker

nathancom wrote:

There is no great trick in being an entrepreneur - generally it requires either a) money from another source b) a strong enough desire to get rich c) a willingness to screw over your fellow human beings to get rich d) a combination of the above.

Brilliant!

Wonderful stuff. This is the general feeling in France too, and it's what's killing the country.

So when you buy bike stuff from your bike shop or Wiggle, etc. do you do it through clenched teeth whilst cursing those entrepreneurial b^&tards?
When you call a plumber round to fix that leak, are you secretly hating him for having started his own business?
If you go for a week with Alpcycles, Col Conquerors, etc. are you seething that they're doing it just to screw you over?

What about Rapha, Hope and USE? How dare they leech off us all, and try and make stuff in the UK! I certainly won't be buying anything from them, cos I can't bear the thought of making them rich!

Entrepreneurs and businesses are everywhere, and part of the fabric of life. They drive the economy. The alternative is to be in public service, unemployed or hey, guess what, working for those nasty entrepreneurs.