The Last One
Comments
-
Bloody expensive jokes!Anyway. Getting back OT.
Who thinks football managers are worth the money? Mourinho and LVG come to mind.
For the comedy value, yes.
But then I don't have Sky so what should I care?
Still better value than Jack Whitehall or Michael McIntyre.0 -
I called you out for spouting BS, that's all. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise - you made the point, you demonstrate it...So, your saying that the same amount of corporation tax would still be collected IF it was made voluntary?
and i never mentioned aggresive tax avoidance did i?
but after a hard days work, it always good to read what you have to say.
Now where's rhat link to your pro business post?
ah another diversionary tactic lets not answer any difficult questions!
anyway, by stating v clearly that the private funds and i think i used the word greatly, that is supporting and acknowledging the private sector element to state spending..... which is essential element.
i m not really sure what more you want, as we ve not had a pro/anti business thread have we?0 -
Tough question that. License, or adverts? Adverts will probably win in the long run.
Bloody expensive jokes!Anyway. Getting back OT.
Who thinks football managers are worth the money? Mourinho and LVG come to mind.
For the comedy value, yes.
But then I don't have Sky so what should I care?
Still better value than Jack Whitehall or Michael McIntyre.
Still doesn't address why a redundant worker gets 12 weeks wages but a failed manager gets millions.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
One's a legal obligation, the other in many cases is contractual.
Fair? Doesn't matter does it?0 -
Not necessarily. I work freelance and I am well aware that a contract is not worth the paper it is written on.One's a legal obligation, the other in many cases is contractual.
Fair? Doesn't matter does it?
Same applies in football.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
One's a legal obligation, the other in many cases is contractual.
Fair? Doesn't matter does it?
Only in that it demonstrates the degree of hypocrisy the public accept - silly figures for kicking a bag of wind in a form of recreation perfectly acceptable, but if anyone else dares earn 6 figures ( a year, not week as in football) then that is unfair, should be taxed at ludicrous rates etc.
Funny thing is before pay was unrestricted, and the max was £30 per week, Bobby Charlton lived in a semi in Salford etc, England used to win, 1966 and all that - high pay has led to failure, not success.0 -
it won Spain a world cup though
that and PEDs..... allegedly...maybe
I knew there was something else we could blame Thatcher for.... ;-)CS7
Surrey Hills
What's a Zwift?0 -
One's a legal obligation, the other in many cases is contractual.
Fair? Doesn't matter does it?
Only in that it demonstrates the degree of hypocrisy the public accept - silly figures for kicking a bag of wind in a form of recreation perfectly acceptable, but if anyone else dares earn 6 figures ( a year, not week as in football) then that is unfair, should be taxed at ludicrous rates etc.
I don't think that many people believe that footballers are worth the amount they get paid. Even looking at it from a free market point of view, football clubs are (or were, until the recent TV deal) in gigantic debt, and this will probably become a problem in the future when players' wages rise to match the new revenues.Funny thing is before pay was unrestricted, and the max was £30 per week, Bobby Charlton lived in a semi in Salford etc, England used to win, 1966 and all that - high pay has led to failure, not success.
They aren't coached properly at a young age and the PL is a highly physical, exhausting competition, more so than many of the continental leagues, that's why they don't win anything. It's nothing to do with what they earn. The Germans, Spanish, etc. don't get minimum wage.0 -
The capitalism/socialism and private/secror/public sector arguments are not the same though, are they.I know exactly what you mean. But my statement that the state relies on the private sector to funding is correct and that is the only point that I wanted to make. Are ypu familiar with the concept of an argument focused on one specific issue?
I never said that the state gets its funding from the private sector, and neither did anyone else. What I'm saying is that the language you have used on this thread and others makes it sound like you believe that it's a one-way street. You talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", in other threads you've said that socialism has a "parasitic" relationship with capitalism (seeing as you wouldn't actually define what you mean by socialism, I'm going to have to assume you are talking about government spending, especially on welfare, health, etc.). That's why I'm making these points - it's because of the things that you've said."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The capitalism/socialism and private/secror/public sector arguments are not the same though, are they.I know exactly what you mean. But my statement that the state relies on the private sector to funding is correct and that is the only point that I wanted to make. Are ypu familiar with the concept of an argument focused on one specific issue?
I never said that the state gets its funding from the private sector, and neither did anyone else. What I'm saying is that the language you have used on this thread and others makes it sound like you believe that it's a one-way street. You talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", in other threads you've said that socialism has a "parasitic" relationship with capitalism (seeing as you wouldn't actually define what you mean by socialism, I'm going to have to assume you are talking about government spending, especially on welfare, health, etc.). That's why I'm making these points - it's because of the things that you've said.
It's a bit confusing because people chuck around these labels without really knowing/thinking about what they mean. When I asked you for your definition of socialism, you wouldn't give me one, so I don't know to what extent you conflate public sector and socialism.0 -
Parasitic, productive etc are all a matter of degree and interpretation and what you do
For fun lets look at accountancy - it exists as a function of regulation that produces nothing a consumer wants to buy and is purely an overhead. One set of accountants dreaming up GAAP for another lot to administer - little more than a closed shop job creation scheme.
So lets agree to get rid of regulation and let the private sector reap the benefits
0 -
The definition of socialism is pretty well established :roll: Here's a starter for 10:
The capitalism/socialism and private/secror/public sector arguments are not the same though, are they.I know exactly what you mean. But my statement that the state relies on the private sector to funding is correct and that is the only point that I wanted to make. Are ypu familiar with the concept of an argument focused on one specific issue?
I never said that the state gets its funding from the private sector, and neither did anyone else. What I'm saying is that the language you have used on this thread and others makes it sound like you believe that it's a one-way street. You talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", in other threads you've said that socialism has a "parasitic" relationship with capitalism (seeing as you wouldn't actually define what you mean by socialism, I'm going to have to assume you are talking about government spending, especially on welfare, health, etc.). That's why I'm making these points - it's because of the things that you've said.
It's a bit confusing because people chuck around these labels without really knowing/thinking about what they mean. When I asked you for your definition of socialism, you wouldn't give me one, so I don't know to what extent you conflate public sector and socialism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The definition of socialism is pretty well established :roll: Here's a starter for 10:I...issue?
I...said.
The...they.
It's a bit confusing because people chuck around these labels without really knowing/thinking about what they mean. When I asked you for your definition of socialism, you wouldn't give me one, so I don't know to what extent you conflate public sector and socialism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Which states: "Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them".
So what is your definition of Socialism, more - what doe it mean to you and why are you so adversed to it?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The definition of socialism is pretty well established :roll: Here's a starter for 10:
The capitalism/socialism and private/secror/public sector arguments are not the same though, are they.I know exactly what you mean. But my statement that the state relies on the private sector to funding is correct and that is the only point that I wanted to make. Are ypu familiar with the concept of an argument focused on one specific issue?
I never said that the state gets its funding from the private sector, and neither did anyone else. What I'm saying is that the language you have used on this thread and others makes it sound like you believe that it's a one-way street. You talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", in other threads you've said that socialism has a "parasitic" relationship with capitalism (seeing as you wouldn't actually define what you mean by socialism, I'm going to have to assume you are talking about government spending, especially on welfare, health, etc.). That's why I'm making these points - it's because of the things that you've said.
It's a bit confusing because people chuck around these labels without really knowing/thinking about what they mean. When I asked you for your definition of socialism, you wouldn't give me one, so I don't know to what extent you conflate public sector and socialism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
But I was asking you for YOURS seeing as you kept using the word without really seeming to know what it means (which isn't a criticism aimed solely at you, political labels tend to get used all the time by people of all different persuasions as shorthand for "stuff that I like/don't like").0 -
Pretty much as in the Wiki link. Now what's your point?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Pretty much as in the Wiki link. Now what's your point?
that Wiki page seems to associate socialism with communism - most of europe operates some sort of socialist model and none are communist states, even Sweden, operates a very open market economy, with good social provision.
I guess steve0 if you think that is what modern socialism is about its no surprise you want to see its demise, but this outdated (wiki version) model of socialism is already dead.0 -
Pretty much as in the Wiki link. Now what's your point?
that Wiki page seems to associate socialism with communism - most of europe operates some sort of socialist model and none are communist states, even Sweden, operates a very open market economy, with good social provision.
I guess steve0 if you think that is what modern socialism is about its no surprise you want to see its demise, but this outdated (wiki version) model of socialism is already dead.
What's the difference between socialism and communism in your view?
And which European countries operate a socialist model in your view?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pretty much as in the Wiki link. Now what's your point?
that Wiki page seems to associate socialism with communism - most of europe operates some sort of socialist model and none are communist states, even Sweden, operates a very open market economy, with good social provision.
I guess steve0 if you think that is what modern socialism is about its no surprise you want to see its demise, but this outdated (wiki version) model of socialism is already dead.
What's the difference between socialism and communism in your view?
And which European countries operate a socialist model in your view?
To be frank, both labels are out dated, so your question is relevant but as you did say in my view! but tbh you ought to know the difference.
Its a bit like still associating the modern Tory party with Facism after their support for extrem right wing in the 1930s.
Bare in mind this is a bike forum....... Communism, is supposed to bring about a classless society (where everyone is stuck at the bottom of the pile, and total state ownership of production and pretty much failed, bought about mass killing and destroyed many societies it was forced upon and made sure those at the top kept their wealth and privilage, animal farm! and world wide, is dead isnt it?
Modern socialism to me, is about helping supporting the individual, so more a build from the base approach, as say a more right wing view, a top down model, which would say "make the richer and their wealth will trickle down, sorting out societies ills"
BUT i also think that it isnt either/or, both models can have pro and cons.
Most of europe, operate a more left of centre politics than we in the UK do, so they would be much more my model of a socialist society.
So, going back to the thread, earlier intervention at this coal mine, even though it was going to close, sooner or later, would be better than "oh well it s closed, lets through some money at some training" for jobs that dont exist approach.0 -
This one's good:
Lemon socialism
Definitions
(noun)
(pejorative) the policy of a government in a nominally free-market country of bailing out large failing private companies with taxpayers’ money.
Ring a bell?
State socialism
Definitions
(noun)
a variant of socialism in which the power of the state is employed for the purpose of creating an egalitarian society by means of public control of major industries, banks, etc, coupled with economic planning and a social security system.
Note: "public control of major industries" not public ownership of major industries.
Utopian socialism
Definitions
(noun)
(sometimes capitals) socialism established by the peaceful surrender of the means of production by capitalists moved by moral persuasion, example, etc: the form of socialism advocated by Robert Owen, Fichte, and others
Bill Gates is a semi Utopian socialist, well I never.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The difference is less than you might expect. Here's a summary of both socialism and communism and a succunct explanation of why neither work:Pretty much as in the Wiki link. Now what's your point?
that Wiki page seems to associate socialism with communism - most of europe operates some sort of socialist model and none are communist states, even Sweden, operates a very open market economy, with good social provision.
I guess steve0 if you think that is what modern socialism is about its no surprise you want to see its demise, but this outdated (wiki version) model of socialism is already dead.
What's the difference between socialism and communism in your view?
And which European countries operate a socialist model in your view?
To be frank, both labels are out dated, so your question is relevant but as you did say in my view! but tbh you ought to know the difference.
Its a bit like still associating the modern Tory party with Facism after their support for extrem right wing in the 1930s.
Bare in mind this is a bike forum....... Communism, is supposed to bring about a classless society (where everyone is stuck at the bottom of the pile, and total state ownership of production and pretty much failed, bought about mass killing and destroyed many societies it was forced upon and made sure those at the top kept their wealth and privilage, animal farm! and world wide, is dead isnt it?
Modern socialism to me, is about helping supporting the individual, so more a build from the base approach, as say a more right wing view, a top down model, which would say "make the richer and their wealth will trickle down, sorting out societies ills"
BUT i also think that it isnt either/or, both models can have pro and cons.
Most of europe, operate a more left of centre politics than we in the UK do, so they would be much more my model of a socialist society.
So, going back to the thread, earlier intervention at this coal mine, even though it was going to close, sooner or later, would be better than "oh well it s closed, lets through some money at some training" for jobs that dont exist approach.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp
Based on these definitions, pretty much no European economies are socialist, just left of centre free market economies."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The difference is less than you might expect. Here's a summary of both socialism and communism and a succunct explanation of why neither work:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp
Based on these definitions, pretty much no European economies are socialist, just left of centre free market economies.
But that is what i ve said in my last 2 posts, pure Socialism in Europe does not exist, and communism is dead.
no different from pure form of capitalism, or all those banks would have gone to the wall, we d have no welfare or health systems or a universal education system, let alone WTC and HB.
as for whether Socialism doesnt work? does the more pure capitalist system in the USA produce a fair and equitable system? great if your wealthy with med care, not so fun if you ve not, but under the tories, we in the UK seem to moving toward this model, though it ll take a few years yet.0 -
I usually find that this is the best way to explain economic models to people who don't have financial or economic backgroundsThis one's good:
Lemon socialism
Definitions
(noun)
(pejorative) the policy of a government in a nominally free-market country of bailing out large failing private companies with taxpayers’ money.
Ring a bell?
State socialism
Definitions
(noun)
a variant of socialism in which the power of the state is employed for the purpose of creating an egalitarian society by means of public control of major industries, banks, etc, coupled with economic planning and a social security system.
Note: "public control of major industries" not public ownership of major industries.
Utopian socialism
Definitions
(noun)
(sometimes capitals) socialism established by the peaceful surrender of the means of production by capitalists moved by moral persuasion, example, etc: the form of socialism advocated by Robert Owen, Fichte, and others
Bill Gates is a semi Utopian socialist, well I never.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Nadeer-Hameed/Random-Posts/Economic-Models-Explained-With-Cows"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ebenezer Elliott
"What is a Communist? One who hath yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings.
Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing
To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling."0 -
^ That link Stevo, is an American site with loaded subjectivism thrown in for good measure.
Whilst I agree with the fact that most of Europe are countries with a left of centre free market economy.
My idea of how our economy should be constructed. It uses examples of other economies. We rarely look abroad to see how others do things, or if we do, we don't take it in.
Communication: Should be state controlled (not necessarily owned) and heavily subsidised because it is key to any economy and it is on all of our interests that it runs well and is fit for purpose.
Education and Health: Should be taken out of political control and run by separate, non-political committees with some seats reserved for civil service representatives and a member of the Cabinet.
Energy: Energy provision is a national, domestic and industrial concern and should be part of a cohesive plan not a myriad of different vested interests that compete with each other in a presumed benefit to the consumer (whoever the consumer may be). It needs better regulation and long term planning. Leaving market forces to sort it out doesn't work.
The Economy: A free market economy with all the checks and balances so that their is total clarity and fairness when it comes to taxation and pay. No more tax free Jersey, Guernsey and IoM. No more Non-dom status - if you have a British Passport then you need to abide by taxation rules regardless of where you live. If you want to be non-dom, then get citizenship somewhere else.
Councils: They should be free to legislate and even set local tax levels. Council tax needs to be set according to income, not the value of the house - a Pay As You Earn council tax policy. Why condemn people into poverty or having to move just because their house price has gone up due to circumstances out of their control? A £2m pound house is worth nothing to the owner unless he/she borrows on it or sells it.
Re-instate Rent Authorities. Give councils the power to buy unused building sites at a knock down price if they have been sat doing nothing for 6 months max. Give councils extra funding to allow them to take control and ownership of these sites. Give councils the power to release brownfield sites for development and cut down on red tape when it comes to building new homes. Ensure that there is a minimum percentage of houses built by private companies that are 'affordable'.
Cap rents not HB. The current system is the wrong way round. Provide Assured tenancies like we have in Scotland so that a landlord can't simply put the rent up out of the blue.
Banking: The power of a bank to lend money and allow for legitimate business is one that is of national interest. Banks have to have an element of obligation in that sense. They must be more accountable. Government must have the power to step in and make sure Banks are not taking undue risk with public money and certain actions are justified.
I won't go into benefits as it is a huge field only: Give everyone in the UK £70 per week. Anything earned above that is taxable and those who are in employment will give most of it back in tax anyway. The benefit system cost millions to deliver and is a very convoluted and arbitrary system.
So, at no point have I shown a direct allegiance to any political party or political persuasion, though it is obvious that I am left of centre but certainly not anti-capitalist or anti-corporate.
The problem I have with the Labour party is that it is dated and we haven't had one since 1979 so I do not know what they stand for. The Liberal Democrats looked good until they got into a coalition. Cheltenham was under a Liberal Council and it was very very well run. Nigel Rose MP was excellent; a LD.
The Tories still support the theory that a free market a la Freidman will generate wealth and that wealth will trickle down but it doesn't for a number of reasons. Market forces will not, have not and never will provide all the answers to social requirements.
I firmly believe that he greatest challenge to any government in the UK is the problem of housing. Neither the Tories or the Labour Party have a real solution to the problem.
Housing affects income, families, catchment areas, mobility, health etc etc and it isn't being tackled.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
^
I firmly believe that he greatest challenge to any government in the UK is the problem of housing. Neither the Tories or the Labour Party have a real solution to the problem.
Housing affects income, families, catchment areas, mobility, health etc etc and it isn't being tackled.
Agree but my mate Dave has a solution! you could always knock down and rebuild sink housing estates using private capital and a tiny sum of Gov money, then sell of the prime properties, stick in a little social housing, & have the rest as private rented.
the majority of the people who used live there can be made to take cheap private rented up North somewhere?
Luckily we ve not got a Government that would do such a awful thing.0 -
if housing is unaffordable how come people can afford to pay more and more for it each year?
if houses were unaffordable 3 years ago, why have prices risen since then?
come to think of it, if housing is so unaffordable, why do so many people want to come here from places where housing is so much cheaper?0 -
Pretty much as in the Wiki link. Now what's your point?
Just a meandering conversation really. If you want to follow it again, you can re-read the thread.0 -
if housing is unaffordable how come people can afford to pay more and more for it each year?
if houses were unaffordable 3 years ago, why have prices risen since then?
come to think of it, if housing is so unaffordable, why do so many people want to come here from places where housing is so much cheaper?
Prices keep going up because mortgage lenders keep lending money to BTL landlords. Of course when the government then shovels money into these people's bank accounts, prices can keep rising. Now that the tax rules on landlords are changing, that situation will hopefully change.
People keep coming here because unemployment is high and pay is poor in Eastern Europe. If you work really hard in Britain for a few years and live with a few friends, you could easily afford to buy yourself a house without a mortgage in quite a few of the newer EU member states.0 -
The other factor driving high property and other asset prices is of course rock bottom interest rates. Which may change in the not too distant future if the recent news is to be believed."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-house-prices-crash-global-141910551.html
It would have to be one hell of a crash to significantly alter the housing problem.
What exactly are the BTL tax proposals?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
