FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Monetary policy
Monetary policy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Since today is spring statement day…. I wondered if anyone had any fiscal policies that they would champion… not just cutting income tax or NI… but more specific proposals that would help long term I’ll come back with one I love later…" 'Carrousel' Like in Logan's run.  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Simplify the tax system. Increase the tax free allowance to £15 or £20k then everything above that is charged at a flat rate, maybe 40%. No allowances , reliefs or escape. Tighten enforcement to collect the tax due. No other personal tax or VAT. Businesses taxed in a similar manner. Unemployment benefits reduced to a bare minimum for 6 months. After that you must work for the state to get any money. Minimum wage, doing all the jobs that have been neglected. Litter picking, maintenance, potholes etc. Make the country nice again. No in work benefits. Minimum wage should be set at a rate that is liveable. Disability benefits only available to the physically disabled. Even then, the assumption would be that family and partners would take much of the responsibility. Sort out the energy prices. Electricity prices based on average generation cost not most expensive. No additional fees for green initiatives. No standing charge, all based on consumption. That will do for now but I’m sure there is more." I'd never vote for you! Btw explain physical disability. | |||
"tax shitposting on internet forums and social media " | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. " Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. | |||
| |||
"All state benefits to be based on contributions. Minimum 5 years contributions to receive any benefit, no exceptions. Non nationals 10 years." How will that work for people too disabled ever to work? Who is going to maintain such people? Most non nationals are ineligible for most benefits anyway. | |||
"All state benefits to be based on contributions. Minimum 5 years contributions to receive any benefit, no exceptions. Non nationals 10 years. How will that work for people too disabled ever to work? Who is going to maintain such people? Most non nationals are ineligible for most benefits anyway. " Very good point and of course I meant those able to work/support themselves- my bad for not clarifying. The Welfare State as envisaged by Keynes was always based on the contribution principle and still is in many European countries. The benefits and Social housing bill for non Nationals in the UK is huge and has grown sharply. In my experience its far easier for non nationals to claim benefits here than elsewhere. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. " Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. " A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for." What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude." Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above." Without parasitic fiat currency, 20% of gdp is enough money to fund national spending. Luxury goods can carry higher sales tax than 20%. Issue solved. Do you realise income tax didn’t exist before central banking debt? | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above. Without parasitic fiat currency, 20% of gdp is enough money to fund national spending. Luxury goods can carry higher sales tax than 20%. Issue solved. Do you realise income tax didn’t exist before central banking debt?" Aren't most currencies Fiat currencies now? Mrs x | |||
| |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. " That’s why my system is better. Household income below £40k = no tax. Everything above that is taxed at 40%. No other taxes at all. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above. Without parasitic fiat currency, 20% of gdp is enough money to fund national spending. Luxury goods can carry higher sales tax than 20%. Issue solved. Do you realise income tax didn’t exist before central banking debt?Aren't most currencies Fiat currencies now? Mrs x" Sadly, yes. Almost all currencies are fiat. The last person to try replacing them was Gaddafi. JFK tried it too. They put us all in to endless debt servitude, mostly to one family that came up with the system. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above. Without parasitic fiat currency, 20% of gdp is enough money to fund national spending. Luxury goods can carry higher sales tax than 20%. Issue solved. Do you realise income tax didn’t exist before central banking debt?" You haven’t answered my basic point - how do you reconcile the fact that lower income groups typically spend all of their income on day to day living whilst higher income groups spend much less? Indeed the lowest income group often spend more than their income because they borrow to live. Your proposal would mean that not only would the very lowest income group pay tax on all the money they have earned they would also pay tax on the money they have borrowed to live because they are spending that money whilst the highest groups will pay much less tax proportionally. As someone who falls into the higher income bracket I would love your proposal 
It doesn’t matter what costs the government is accruing and whether 20% is a valid figure or not - what surely matters to most people is the inequality that the poorest in society pay the most (relative to income) under your proposal. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above. Without parasitic fiat currency, 20% of gdp is enough money to fund national spending. Luxury goods can carry higher sales tax than 20%. Issue solved. Do you realise income tax didn’t exist before central banking debt? You haven’t answered my basic point - how do you reconcile the fact that lower income groups typically spend all of their income on day to day living whilst higher income groups spend much less? Indeed the lowest income group often spend more than their income because they borrow to live. Your proposal would mean that not only would the very lowest income group pay tax on all the money they have earned they would also pay tax on the money they have borrowed to live because they are spending that money whilst the highest groups will pay much less tax proportionally. As someone who falls into the higher income bracket I would love your proposal ."Marry me  | |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it." They abolished Road Tax in 1937. What you pay now is Car Tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty if you're being pedantic). | |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it. They abolished Road Tax in 1937. What you pay now is Car Tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty if you're being pedantic)." You get the drift. Abolish it and pay for what you use, pay has you go. If you're only driving to to the shops why should you pay for a road in the middle of no where. If you end up useing that road you would have paid through your tyre wear to get there. Makes sense. | |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above. Without parasitic fiat currency, 20% of gdp is enough money to fund national spending. Luxury goods can carry higher sales tax than 20%. Issue solved. Do you realise income tax didn’t exist before central banking debt? You haven’t answered my basic point - how do you reconcile the fact that lower income groups typically spend all of their income on day to day living whilst higher income groups spend much less? Indeed the lowest income group often spend more than their income because they borrow to live. Your proposal would mean that not only would the very lowest income group pay tax on all the money they have earned they would also pay tax on the money they have borrowed to live because they are spending that money whilst the highest groups will pay much less tax proportionally. As someone who falls into the higher income bracket I would love your proposal
It doesn’t matter what costs the government is accruing and whether 20% is a valid figure or not - what surely matters to most people is the inequality that the poorest in society pay the most (relative to income) under your proposal."The poor and middle classes already subsidise the very richest in our society. Luxury goods can be taxed at higher rates (including luxury and multiple homes) This system should encourage the rich to withdraw funds and keep them in the economy rather than offshoring. Money in the economy helps ride through the tough times in the global economy. I must add that my suggested system relies on reducing the divide between the majority and the hoarding few billionaires. Point 2 will prevent the need for indebted living. Anyone who can produce more than they consume today will have reserves for tomorrow. That’s a great motive to work hard and save. The only reason governments need more than 20% of GDP is to pay off central banking’s endless debt and to feed a greedy military industrial complex. | |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it." This makes perfect sense. If you drive high miles, heavy vehicles or with a heavy foot then you pay more. | |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it. This makes perfect sense. If you drive high miles, heavy vehicles or with a heavy foot then you pay more." Does that include haulage trucks, delivery vans, contractors etc because you do know who they will pass the cost onto | |||
| |||
"Incentives for couples to have children Nursery fees paid for, starter packs like nappies, baby food etc Its got to be cheaper then importing the 3rd world " Why would we want to have more children? Women don't all want to have children, they want genuine choice of how to live their lives. More children equals fewer women in work - how are you funding your stay at home parent policy? | |||
| |||
"I do rest at night knowing that people who are willing to throw capitalism under a bus for unworkable populist left ideologies, are never let near power in this country. "Capitalism is an excellent idea. Unfortunately we’ve never had it in my lifetime. We’ve had socialism for the rich, organisations too big to fail causing crashes with corporate greed. This has created oligarchs who are stealthily moving us toward neo-feudalism. Soon the only solution will be with pitchforks and guillotines. That or we will be living in a future like the bastard child of Dickens and the hunger games. I wish I was joking. | |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it." "They abolished Road Tax in 1937. What you pay now is Car Tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty if you're being pedantic)." "You get the drift. Abolish it and pay for what you use, pay has you go. If you're only driving to to the shops why should you pay for a road in the middle of no where. If you end up useing that road you would have paid through your tyre wear to get there. Makes sense." Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The money you pay in Car Tax doesn't go into a special pot to pay for roads. It just goes into central funds. Road building is paid for by the local council for smaller roads, or the government for bigger roads. Even under your proposed Tyre Tax, you'd still be paying for roads that you don't use, because they're paid for out of general taxes. | |||
"Incentives for couples to have children Nursery fees paid for, starter packs like nappies, baby food etc Its got to be cheaper then importing the 3rd world Why would we want to have more children? Women don't all want to have children, they want genuine choice of how to live their lives. More children equals fewer women in work - how are you funding your stay at home parent policy? " Nursery fees paid definitely indicates working mothers, not stay at home mums. | |||
| |||
| |||
"1) If corporations want to have the rights of an individual and separate person to the directors, they should pay tax on their incomes like all of us individuals do. 2) Abolish private central banks, they are parasites. 3) Create a state owned central bank. 4) Abolish the stock markets. Profit should be encouraged by those who are productive instead. 5) Investment in companies should come from government loans on long terms and low rates, loaned to families not individuals like is done in China. 6) Work toward a system where the only tax is purchase tax. Any viable state without fiat currency should be adequately funded by 20% of GDP. Defenantly work towards the only tax is purchase TAX as the main form of taxation. Are you sure this is really what you want? This will suit the richest in society - although they might spend a lot, they typically only spend a small fraction of their income. The poorest spend almost all, if not all, their income. The richest will have huge amounts of wealth that go untaxed. The poorest will have all their wealth taxed. A lot of people just say stuff because it sounds tough n stuff, but they don't really understand what they're advocating for. What do you doubt I understand? I’m advocating for a system where anyone who can produce more than they consume today will prosper tomorrow. The end of inflationary economics which rob of us our savings and put us all in debt servitude. Our VWE amigo has already explained the issue in his post above. Without parasitic fiat currency, 20% of gdp is enough money to fund national spending. Luxury goods can carry higher sales tax than 20%. Issue solved. Do you realise income tax didn’t exist before central banking debt? You haven’t answered my basic point - how do you reconcile the fact that lower income groups typically spend all of their income on day to day living whilst higher income groups spend much less? Indeed the lowest income group often spend more than their income because they borrow to live. Your proposal would mean that not only would the very lowest income group pay tax on all the money they have earned they would also pay tax on the money they have borrowed to live because they are spending that money whilst the highest groups will pay much less tax proportionally. As someone who falls into the higher income bracket I would love your proposal
It doesn’t matter what costs the government is accruing and whether 20% is a valid figure or not - what surely matters to most people is the inequality that the poorest in society pay the most (relative to income) under your proposal."If the lowest income groups where not paying income tax they would have more to spend. Or are you implying that a house hold has less than £12,570 as an income. But even if that is the case with a grater steps in purchase tax it could work. I think. But it would also tax cash work and Drug profit well if its spent. | |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it." Like this and on Fule | |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it. This makes perfect sense. If you drive high miles, heavy vehicles or with a heavy foot then you pay more. Does that include haulage trucks, delivery vans, contractors etc because you do know who they will pass the cost onto " And if the cost of Chinese made goods gose up people will buy less good for the economy. Trade people will work more locally. Also a good thing. | |||
| |||
"I do rest at night knowing that people who are willing to throw capitalism under a bus for unworkable populist left ideologies, are never let near power in this country.
Capitalism is an excellent idea. Unfortunately we’ve never had it in my lifetime. We’ve had socialism for the rich, organisations too big to fail causing crashes with corporate greed. This has created oligarchs who are stealthily moving us toward neo-feudalism. Soon the only solution will be with pitchforks and guillotines. That or we will be living in a future like the bastard child of Dickens and the hunger games. I wish I was joking."So would you Tax the purchase on shears. And over sea shears say 5% for UK shares and 25% for over sea shears | |||
"Abolish road tax and put a levy on tyres to cover it. They abolished Road Tax in 1937. What you pay now is Car Tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty if you're being pedantic). You get the drift. Abolish it and pay for what you use, pay has you go. If you're only driving to to the shops why should you pay for a road in the middle of no where. If you end up useing that road you would have paid through your tyre wear to get there. Makes sense. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The money you pay in Car Tax doesn't go into a special pot to pay for roads. It just goes into central funds. Road building is paid for by the local council for smaller roads, or the government for bigger roads. Even under your proposed Tyre Tax, you'd still be paying for roads that you don't use, because they're paid for out of general taxes." But proportionally it would be better. | |||
"UBI Dividends taxed at the same rate as income tax. Is that on top of Corporation Tax. Renationalisation of utilities. The essentials to live should not be a means of generating profit. Rent caps and long term tenancies in the in the private sector. (See above). Rent Caps will incurage more landlords to sell reducing rental properties pushing up the cost to rent. As has more legislation. Compulsory purchase orders on any residential property that's sat empty for 6 months or more, to be used as social housing. I would assume excluding property in prorate. Scrapping of the current regulator for energy, given it appears to work for the benefit of the private sector rather than the general public. Dose it Energy can't be that expensive or people would not heat there home like in the 70s use to like ice on the inside of a window in winter. MP's to be banned from holding second jobs, directorships or any role in the private sector. They're elected and paid to do a full time job for the public and shouldn't have the time/energy for anything else. So if know second Job lots would leave. Meaning a reduction in skills if that's possible. So should the PM have a constituency is that not 2 jobs 🤔 " | |||
"I do rest at night knowing that people who are willing to throw capitalism under a bus for unworkable populist left ideologies, are never let near power in this country. "I want to know what: "throwing capitalism under a bus" involves, and "unworkable populist left ideologies" means, or examples of such, especially ones from this thread. As they seem like hyperbole to me | |||
"Thunderdome. But for chancellor's " Most of the last 40 years of PMs and chancellors can go there for me. | |||
"UBI Dividends taxed at the same rate as income tax. Is that on top of Corporation Tax. Renationalisation of utilities. The essentials to live should not be a means of generating profit. Rent caps and long term tenancies in the in the private sector. (See above). Rent Caps will incurage more landlords to sell reducing rental properties pushing up the cost to rent. As has more legislation. Compulsory purchase orders on any residential property that's sat empty for 6 months or more, to be used as social housing. I would assume excluding property in prorate. Scrapping of the current regulator for energy, given it appears to work for the benefit of the private sector rather than the general public. Dose it Energy can't be that expensive or people would not heat there home like in the 70s use to like ice on the inside of a window in winter. MP's to be banned from holding second jobs, directorships or any role in the private sector. They're elected and paid to do a full time job for the public and shouldn't have the time/energy for anything else. So if know second Job lots would leave. Meaning a reduction in skills if that's possible. So should the PM have a constituency is that not 2 jobs 🤔 " If 'lots would leave' then to me that's good. The majority of job contracts have conditions that secondary employment must not impact on their current employment. Aside from the potential for conflicts of interest, which are hugely evident at present, MP's should devote 100% of their working time and effort to their constituents, not private businesses. Anyone that feels they need a higher income should stick to the private sector and stay out of public service. It's the only way voters can be sure they're not influenced by business links. 🤷♂️ | |||
"UBI Dividends taxed at the same rate as income tax. Renationalisation of utilities. The essentials to live should not be a means of generating profit. Rent caps and long term tenancies in the in the private sector. (See above). Compulsory purchase orders on any residential property that's sat empty for 6 months or more, to be used as social housing. Scrapping of the current regulator for energy, given it appears to work for the benefit of the private sector rather than the general public. MP's to be banned from holding second jobs, directorships or any role in the private sector. They're elected and paid to do a full time job for the public and shouldn't have the time/energy for anything else. " I don't see UBI ever taking off. That would have to be globally. | |||
" If 'lots would leave' then to me that's good. The majority of job contracts have conditions that secondary employment must not impact on their current employment. Aside from the potential for conflicts of interest, which are hugely evident at present, MP's should devote 100% of their working time and effort to their constituents, not private businesses. Anyone that feels they need a higher income should stick to the private sector and stay out of public service. It's the only way voters can be sure they're not influenced by business links. 🤷♂️" Of what you propose is the exact reason why you get high proportion of MPs with second jobs though, they're not paid anywhere near enough to be in those kind of positions imo. It only attracts the ones that don't need the salary, but more so the influence that it brings with it, often to shape policy that benefits themselves indirectly and directly in some cases. I've said it numerous times on these politics threads that if you pay peanuts... Relying on sentiment or some just responsibility is naive. | |||
| |||
"The basic salary for an MP is £91,346. Hardly peanuts. In addition: "MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London or their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency." IN ADDITION to this amount, Ministers earn extra as follows: Prime Minister +£75,440 Cabinet Minister +£67,505 Minister of State +£31,680 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State +£22,375 I don't know how, for example, the Chancellor needs to accept donated anything, on a salary of £123,026. And that's a without considering the expenses that can be claimed, including travel and maintaining property. And subsidised food and drink within Westminster, at rates the general public have zero chance of getting in their staff canteens or from other vendors. A jacket potato with beans in the Commons Café is £3.50, for example. A jacket potato with beans in our work canteen is £4.95. In the "Spud Club" Manchester on JustEats, a jacket spud with beans is £6.00! I do NOT buy the idea that MPs must take second jobs because the salary isn't enough." You are missing my point, I'm saying it's peanuts in relative terms and that the best salaries generally attract the better talent. A comparable job or 'trade' for someone in that education/attainment level, from private sector paying jobs, will pay a million pound plus a year easy. The take home on that MP salary is only slightly better than my wage, which is good but I don't think that is particularly impressive. I know they get other benefits and is pushing top 10-5% of earnings in the country, but they would never be wealthy from it, not even vaguely by the standards they could be paid in private sec jobs. I liken it to the current crisis (yes it's a crisis) where many newly qualified health professionals, nurses etc. are leaving the UK, in the thousands because they can earn far more in other countries. I find the way you think MP salary to be sufficient is irrelevant and it's naive to expect that someone should take jobs that pay less. Do not confuse me for thinking that system is OK, because it is broken imo, but that is how it works. We live in a world of scarcity and is only getting worse. Which I believe for no good reason I might add, but the survival instinct is to go for the bigger apple. The most recent example to mind is the toilet roll hording; tell people that they may not have something and morality gets pushed to the side. | |||
| |||
| |||
"In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary ..." It just isn't. £37,000 is the median salary, earned by median level people making a median level contribution to society. For MPs we want the best people we can find, and the best can earn much more than an MP's salary. The median CEO's base salary is £85,000, with another £80,000 of incentives on top. £91,000 is not an attractive pay packet for people with talent and drive, especially when you add in the job insecurity, having to deal with members of the public, and having your every move scrutinised by the press. I don't think the current lot are worth the money we pay them, but if we want better people, we need to start offering them more. | |||
"I do rest at night knowing that people who are willing to throw capitalism under a bus for unworkable populist left ideologies, are never let near power in this country.
I want to know what: "throwing capitalism under a bus" involves, and "unworkable populist left ideologies" means, or examples of such, especially ones from this thread. As they seem like hyperbole to me"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans. These aren’t tweaks to already established pillars they’re unworkable proposals that would dismantle the foundations of a market economy. Populist left ideologies ideas sound amazingly well thought out but would fall apart and with it the economy. Tax the rich, tax businesses, redistribute wealth. What problem is this mantra solving? Stripping out capital doesn’t create opportunity, it weakens investment, innovation, and growth. The idea that wealth is static that the rich won’t move it or themselves is naive no matter how many times it is parroted. Capital is fluid, it’s managed, moved, and protected. We should be focusing on making the UK attractive for investment, a safe, stable environment where success is encouraged. To grow a strong economy, build a platform where people can prosper on their own terms, to that we need to encourage business and investment, which drives more revenue into the treasury. | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. " You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. | |||
"I do rest at night knowing that people who are willing to throw capitalism under a bus for unworkable populist left ideologies, are never let near power in this country.
I want to know what: "throwing capitalism under a bus" involves, and "unworkable populist left ideologies" means, or examples of such, especially ones from this thread. As they seem like hyperbole to me
“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans. These aren’t tweaks to already established pillars they’re unworkable proposals that would dismantle the foundations of a market economy. Populist left ideologies ideas sound amazingly well thought out but would fall apart and with it the economy.
Tax the rich, tax businesses, redistribute wealth. What problem is this mantra solving?
Stripping out capital doesn’t create opportunity, it weakens investment, innovation, and growth. The idea that wealth is static that the rich won’t move it or themselves is naive no matter how many times it is parroted. Capital is fluid, it’s managed, moved, and protected.
We should be focusing on making the UK attractive for investment, a safe, stable environment where success is encouraged. To grow a strong economy, build a platform where people can prosper on their own terms, to that we need to encourage business and investment, which drives more revenue into the treasury. "this sort of kieth joseph experimental garbage has been flogged to death and been proved a disaster, yet you still cling to it like rat on the flotsam of that sunken ship .... you and your minority are holding this country back and the silent majority want something better | |||
"I do rest at night knowing that people who are willing to throw capitalism under a bus for unworkable populist left ideologies, are never let near power in this country.
I want to know what: "throwing capitalism under a bus" involves, and "unworkable populist left ideologies" means, or examples of such, especially ones from this thread. As they seem like hyperbole to me
“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans. These aren’t tweaks to already established pillars they’re unworkable proposals that would dismantle the foundations of a market economy. Populist left ideologies ideas sound amazingly well thought out but would fall apart and with it the economy.
Tax the rich, tax businesses, redistribute wealth. What problem is this mantra solving?
Stripping out capital doesn’t create opportunity, it weakens investment, innovation, and growth. The idea that wealth is static that the rich won’t move it or themselves is naive no matter how many times it is parroted. Capital is fluid, it’s managed, moved, and protected.
We should be focusing on making the UK attractive for investment, a safe, stable environment where success is encouraged. To grow a strong economy, build a platform where people can prosper on their own terms, to that we need to encourage business and investment, which drives more revenue into the treasury. "Fab seems to be the final hiding place of the lunatic Corbyn fringe- I guess they had to go somewhere! | |||
| |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority." Should it be? The main issue is that we have party politics. Essential two rival 'firms' where the best person for the job may not actually be part of that firm, nor in fact any firm. As a result people are shifted around jobs not because they're necessarily best for them but because the ruling party thinks that they'll do an adequate job. How many times does someone remain in a role and how many times are cabinets reshuffled duting a term? It wouldn't happen in the private sector. If people aren't up to the task they'd be let go or sacked, yet MP's always have that position to fall back on if reshuffled. People no longer enter politics to serve. It's all about financial gain and a career where they can make as much for themselves in the short term as possible. Do you seriously think the likes of Rees Mogg, Sunak, Starmer et al actually need/needed the salaries they're paid as MP's? 🤦♂️🤦♂️ | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. Should it be? The main issue is that we have party politics. Essential two rival 'firms' where the best person for the job may not actually be part of that firm, nor in fact any firm. As a result people are shifted around jobs not because they're necessarily best for them but because the ruling party thinks that they'll do an adequate job. How many times does someone remain in a role and how many times are cabinets reshuffled duting a term? It wouldn't happen in the private sector. If people aren't up to the task they'd be let go or sacked, yet MP's always have that position to fall back on if reshuffled. People no longer enter politics to serve. It's all about financial gain and a career where they can make as much for themselves in the short term as possible. Do you seriously think the likes of Rees Mogg, Sunak, Starmer et al actually need/needed the salaries they're paid as MP's? 🤦♂️🤦♂️" That’s why I mentioned that we need to take more responsibility for who we vote for. As constituents, we do have the power to remove MPs, we just never do that unless a huge controversy unfolds. Sunak et al, don't need the salary of an MP, but why does that come into the play, the role of an MP is unique and only a few swim in that pool, some for reasons that will be ego driven, or power and others to genuinely make change. | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. Should it be? The main issue is that we have party politics. Essential two rival 'firms' where the best person for the job may not actually be part of that firm, nor in fact any firm. As a result people are shifted around jobs not because they're necessarily best for them but because the ruling party thinks that they'll do an adequate job. How many times does someone remain in a role and how many times are cabinets reshuffled duting a term? It wouldn't happen in the private sector. If people aren't up to the task they'd be let go or sacked, yet MP's always have that position to fall back on if reshuffled. People no longer enter politics to serve. It's all about financial gain and a career where they can make as much for themselves in the short term as possible. Do you seriously think the likes of Rees Mogg, Sunak, Starmer et al actually need/needed the salaries they're paid as MP's? 🤦♂️🤦♂️ That’s why I mentioned that we need to take more responsibility for who we vote for. As constituents, we do have the power to remove MPs, we just never do that unless a huge controversy unfolds. Sunak et al, don't need the salary of an MP, but why does that come into the play, the role of an MP is unique and only a few swim in that pool, some for reasons that will be ego driven, or power and others to genuinely make change. " But we can't remove MP's aside from three specific conditions. "Under the rules of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 MPs can be recalled under three circumstances: Conviction in the UK of any offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, after all appeals have been exhausted. Note – a sentence over 12 months in jail automatically disqualifies someone from being an MP Suspension from the House following report and recommended sanction from the Committee on Standards for a specified period (at least 10 sitting days, or at least 14 days if sitting days are not specified) Convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (making false or misleading parliamentary allowances claims). Note – the sentence does not have to be custodial for this condition." Once in they're in. The public have no recourse if they think they're simply not up to the job. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. Should it be? The main issue is that we have party politics. Essential two rival 'firms' where the best person for the job may not actually be part of that firm, nor in fact any firm. As a result people are shifted around jobs not because they're necessarily best for them but because the ruling party thinks that they'll do an adequate job. How many times does someone remain in a role and how many times are cabinets reshuffled duting a term? It wouldn't happen in the private sector. If people aren't up to the task they'd be let go or sacked, yet MP's always have that position to fall back on if reshuffled. People no longer enter politics to serve. It's all about financial gain and a career where they can make as much for themselves in the short term as possible. Do you seriously think the likes of Rees Mogg, Sunak, Starmer et al actually need/needed the salaries they're paid as MP's? 🤦♂️🤦♂️ That’s why I mentioned that we need to take more responsibility for who we vote for. As constituents, we do have the power to remove MPs, we just never do that unless a huge controversy unfolds. Sunak et al, don't need the salary of an MP, but why does that come into the play, the role of an MP is unique and only a few swim in that pool, some for reasons that will be ego driven, or power and others to genuinely make change. But we can't remove MP's aside from three specific conditions. "Under the rules of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 MPs can be recalled under three circumstances: Conviction in the UK of any offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, after all appeals have been exhausted. Note – a sentence over 12 months in jail automatically disqualifies someone from being an MP Suspension from the House following report and recommended sanction from the Committee on Standards for a specified period (at least 10 sitting days, or at least 14 days if sitting days are not specified) Convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (making false or misleading parliamentary allowances claims). Note – the sentence does not have to be custodial for this condition." Once in they're in. The public have no recourse if they think they're simply not up to the job. " You're right on the conditions of the recall. There is an option to put pressure on the local whip who in turn will either speak to the MP or push it up to the party leadership, as you point out the action is still limited for under performance or being unpopular for reasons outside the recall. The protection MP's receive is public vote, and the turnout at the last election was abysmal. I'm not sure how this should influence an MP's salary? | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority." So then they have to do the same as every other person on a fixed term contract - work that contract for its duration and have an exit strategy towards the end, just in case the contract is not renewed. This is the reality for millions of workers at all levels of the income tree. It's bullshit that because their role as MP might only last 3-5 years that they need to devote hours and hours (and receive second and third salaries). because they might not get re-elected in the future. On £91k, ANYONE can save money up and have a nest egg for the end of the contract. And they get an exit payment in any case, it's not the case that they're cut off from their income the day after the next General Election. Our MPs earn relatively comparable salaries to other developed countries and quite a bit more than other European countries such as France. | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority." And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. | |||
| |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. " There millions who can and do take second jobs. I'm not sure why you are so angry about the salary of MP's, and their perks. As I mentioned it is not a job any person can do and which mostly people do not want to do. Also I didn't say you were a teacher, I used teacher as an example. | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. There millions who can and do take second jobs. I'm not sure why you are so angry about the salary of MP's, and their perks. As I mentioned it is not a job any person can do and which mostly people do not want to do. Also I didn't say you were a teacher, I used teacher as an example. " I'm angry because MPs on very high salaries are deciding to cut PIP and other disability related benefits, simply to save money. They appear to have zero conceptual understanding whatsoever. We've had an MP using the analogy of his children's pocket money to compare with PIP and people interviewed who seemed incredulous that disabled people might have mortgages to pay. | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. There millions who can and do take second jobs. I'm not sure why you are so angry about the salary of MP's, and their perks. As I mentioned it is not a job any person can do and which mostly people do not want to do. Also I didn't say you were a teacher, I used teacher as an example. I'm angry because MPs on very high salaries are deciding to cut PIP and other disability related benefits, simply to save money. They appear to have zero conceptual understanding whatsoever. We've had an MP using the analogy of his children's pocket money to compare with PIP and people interviewed who seemed incredulous that disabled people might have mortgages to pay. " Disabled people would also like a life outside work and eat properly. Or maybe I'm just a non person so it doesn't matter. Oh sorry. I do have a life outside work - I sleep. | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. There millions who can and do take second jobs. I'm not sure why you are so angry about the salary of MP's, and their perks. As I mentioned it is not a job any person can do and which mostly people do not want to do. Also I didn't say you were a teacher, I used teacher as an example. I'm angry because MPs on very high salaries are deciding to cut PIP and other disability related benefits, simply to save money. They appear to have zero conceptual understanding whatsoever. We've had an MP using the analogy of his children's pocket money to compare with PIP and people interviewed who seemed incredulous that disabled people might have mortgages to pay. Disabled people would also like a life outside work and eat properly. Or maybe I'm just a non person so it doesn't matter. Oh sorry. I do have a life outside work - I sleep." Love that I to get up go to work get home eat go to bed repeat x 6 as working again tomorrow. I would love a life out of work but it to expensive, can't even find the time for the gym any more, but I guess I get my exercise at work, I'll get taxed on that nexted you do a physical job that's a benefit. Worth x | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. " Then chang your employer, it's a free market it teachers are in demand move and get a better deal. That is what happens in the construction industry. And with lots of homes to build its going to be supply and demand 🫴 | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. Then chang your employer, it's a free market it teachers are in demand move and get a better deal. That is what happens in the construction industry. And with lots of homes to build its going to be supply and demand 🫴 " I'm buying up all the letter boxes ready for the rush, free door with every one. Disclaimer, the only box you will get is the one it is packaged in.  | |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. Then chang your employer, it's a free market it teachers are in demand move and get a better deal. That is what happens in the construction industry. And with lots of homes to build its going to be supply and demand 🫴 " I wasn't thinking of retraining as a bricklayer. I'm sure Barratt Homes will be ready to make (un)reasonable adjustments for my being a wheelchair user. I'm trapped with my current employer. Due to my physical disabilities, I have reasonable adjustment to WFH 2 days a week. Without the ability to do some work from home, I would be physically unable to work FT. That would mean my tax contribution to society going down. I've been looking for a 100% WFH job that pays at least my current salary, for over a year, but the drive to push desk based workers back to physical offices mean that I have not been successful. Finally, I entered education as a vocation, not, as I noted above, for the salary. I knew the salary structure and actually, I earn a decent wage in the grand scheme. You miss the point of what I wrote. MPs, who earn more than enough by any measure, should not need to work multiple jobs whilst they are a sitting MP. Their job is effectively fixed term, like lots of jobs in the economy. People on fixed term jobs in other sectors must deal with it without trying to work multiple jobs and, as I explained, most people cannot simply do whatever they like without their main employer's approval. MPs appear to be able to do more or less what they like - the fact Mr Farage is being paid £91k as an MP to spend hardly any time in his constituency OR Parliament, and most of his time swanning around the USA kissing the President's posterior, tells us all we need to know. It shouldn't be possible for MPs like him to do that. He should be attending his constituency every week and he should be in Parliament when not in his constituency. Overseas visits should only be in connection with his work as an MP and never in lieu of it. And Farage isn't the only one drawing the salary but doing very little for it. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"The salary for an MP is nearly double what I make and I'm in a management position in education. In anyone's world and where the median salary is £37,000 in round figures, £91k+ IS a very high salary and it's definitely high when you add in the ministerial supplements and the other extras that they're not needing to incur living expenses in the same way. E.g. no-one pays my travel to get to work each day. But MPs can claim expenses for travel to Westminster. You’re comparing an MP’s salary to what you feel the role is worth, rather than considering the nature and lack of suitable people for the job. It’s not like comparing it to a teacher’s salary, there are thousands of teachers and thousands more aspiring to be one. There are 650 MPs, who are willing to take on that level of public scrutiny and responsibility, and not many more in the wings. Would increasing the salary attract more capable candidates? Possibly, but it’s not guaranteed. What would make a difference is greater voter engagement. If we want better MPs, we should take more responsibility for who we vote for and hold them properly to account. On your point about MPs having second jobs, the average time an MP stays in the role is 8–10 years. Unless they’re in a very safe seat and stay popular, it’s not a longterm career for the majority. And I'm not "just" a teacher. In fact, I'm only slightly a teacher nowadays and have relatively senior management responsibilities making up the majority of my role. And not in the state sector. But I didn't take my job just for the salary, I took it because I was motivated to do it and I knew the salary structure before signing up, as do MPs. If I felt like I needed to supplement my income with a second job, I'd need express permission in writing from SMT and it would certainly not be permitted to interfere with, conflict with or take precedence over my salaried role. I've seen people denied approval or disciplined for doing additional work at the expense of their main job. There millions who can and do take second jobs. I'm not sure why you are so angry about the salary of MP's, and their perks. As I mentioned it is not a job any person can do and which mostly people do not want to do. Also I didn't say you were a teacher, I used teacher as an example. I'm angry because MPs on very high salaries are deciding to cut PIP and other disability related benefits, simply to save money. They appear to have zero conceptual understanding whatsoever. We've had an MP using the analogy of his children's pocket money to compare with PIP and people interviewed who seemed incredulous that disabled people might have mortgages to pay. Disabled people would also like a life outside work and eat properly. Or maybe I'm just a non person so it doesn't matter. Oh sorry. I do have a life outside work - I sleep. Love that I to get up go to work get home eat go to bed repeat x 6 as working again tomorrow. I would love a life out of work but it to expensive, can't even find the time for the gym any more, but I guess I get my exercise at work, I'll get taxed on that nexted you do a physical job that's a benefit. Worth x" I mean a life as opposed to being a blob! Being able to take a stroll outside, see family, wash the kitchen floor, garden, decorate... I sleep 12-16 hours a day/night. | |||
"Oh, and the being a teacher bit of my job is now the most challenging physically, I really shouldn't be doing it anymore but I don't want to leave classroom practice entirely. I've been wrestling with the idea that I should become 100% desk based but that has simply added in an extra layer of the sense of loss to my acquired disability situation. 8.5 years ago, I was able bodied. I got pregnant with my second child and this disability is the direct consequence. I've lost near enough every single aspect of my life pre disability. I have no social life, no friends, I live in pain 24/7, I've lost all my hobbies, the ability to do most things independently and a whole host of other things. Disabled parenting isn't just hard, it's soul destroying. I hate it with a passion and all the things I can't do as a parent fill me with shame and I feel inadequate. I regularly think about leaving my family and leaving them without the burden of my inadequate existence. The ONLY thing left in my life that in any way resembles my pre disability days, is my job. I love my job, otherwise I wouldn't have pushed and pushed myself physically and mentally to go back after my 4 months of maternity leave. I wouldn't have made myself more and more unwell if I didn't enjoy my work and I wouldn't have spent my 3wk stint in hospital in November feeling huge guilt for not being there for my students, if I didn't love what I do. Losing the job I love might finish me off, because it's the last remnant of me. There's none of "me" left. " I so relate. I adore being with my patients (the only part of my identity left), if my employer had their way, I'd be medically retired  | |||
"Oh, and the being a teacher bit of my job is now the most challenging physically, I really shouldn't be doing it anymore but I don't want to leave classroom practice entirely. I've been wrestling with the idea that I should become 100% desk based but that has simply added in an extra layer of the sense of loss to my acquired disability situation. 8.5 years ago, I was able bodied. I got pregnant with my second child and this disability is the direct consequence. I've lost near enough every single aspect of my life pre disability. I have no social life, no friends, I live in pain 24/7, I've lost all my hobbies, the ability to do most things independently and a whole host of other things. Disabled parenting isn't just hard, it's soul destroying. I hate it with a passion and all the things I can't do as a parent fill me with shame and I feel inadequate. I regularly think about leaving my family and leaving them without the burden of my inadequate existence. The ONLY thing left in my life that in any way resembles my pre disability days, is my job. I love my job, otherwise I wouldn't have pushed and pushed myself physically and mentally to go back after my 4 months of maternity leave. I wouldn't have made myself more and more unwell if I didn't enjoy my work and I wouldn't have spent my 3wk stint in hospital in November feeling huge guilt for not being there for my students, if I didn't love what I do. Losing the job I love might finish me off, because it's the last remnant of me. There's none of "me" left. So. There we are. Now, I must put the genie back in the lamp because otherwise the brain gremlins get too big." There is more then bricklayers I'd see you more as a HSE role posably a manual handling trainer, or a machine operator 14 hours in a digger.. | |||
"Oh, and the being a teacher bit of my job is now the most challenging physically, I really shouldn't be doing it anymore but I don't want to leave classroom practice entirely. I've been wrestling with the idea that I should become 100% desk based but that has simply added in an extra layer of the sense of loss to my acquired disability situation. 8.5 years ago, I was able bodied. I got pregnant with my second child and this disability is the direct consequence. I've lost near enough every single aspect of my life pre disability. I have no social life, no friends, I live in pain 24/7, I've lost all my hobbies, the ability to do most things independently and a whole host of other things. Disabled parenting isn't just hard, it's soul destroying. I hate it with a passion and all the things I can't do as a parent fill me with shame and I feel inadequate. I regularly think about leaving my family and leaving them without the burden of my inadequate existence. The ONLY thing left in my life that in any way resembles my pre disability days, is my job. I love my job, otherwise I wouldn't have pushed and pushed myself physically and mentally to go back after my 4 months of maternity leave. I wouldn't have made myself more and more unwell if I didn't enjoy my work and I wouldn't have spent my 3wk stint in hospital in November feeling huge guilt for not being there for my students, if I didn't love what I do. Losing the job I love might finish me off, because it's the last remnant of me. There's none of "me" left. So. There we are. Now, I must put the genie back in the lamp because otherwise the brain gremlins get too big. There is more then bricklayers I'd see you more as a HSE role posably a manual handling trainer, or a machine operator 14 hours in a digger.." Now you're just being obtuse. I have shared my genuine, lived experience and that's the best reply you've got? Really? Have a nice evening. And don't stub your toe on the way out. | |||
| |||
" We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive." How does this work? Everyone produces more than they consume - who buys the excess? | |||
" We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. How does this work? Everyone produces more than they consume - who buys the excess?" They don’t. In the uk 9.5 million are in receipt of benefits. In monetary terms producing less. The productivity needs to be better rewarded removing the need for in work benefits. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive." To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. | |||
| |||
" We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. How does this work? Everyone produces more than they consume - who buys the excess?" It’s a simple principle that applies to money or widgets. To live, farmer has to produce more food in a day than they consume. Any left over can be stored or traded. Without inflationary economics this can be applied to all production or trade. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. " You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that." No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. | |||
" We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. How does this work? Everyone produces more than they consume - who buys the excess? It’s a simple principle that applies to money or widgets. To live, farmer has to produce more food in a day than they consume. Any left over can be stored or traded. Without inflationary economics this can be applied to all production or trade. " I'm not buying, selling or eating patients. There's a horror film in the making 🤣 | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still." That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same." That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. " Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still." Your evolved capitalism only works for those inside the square mile. The rest of us get austerity. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. " I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. Your evolved capitalism only works for those inside the square mile. The rest of us get austerity." Not quite
Society has changed and with it the economy and wealth creation, 200 years ago it would be cotton and coal today it is finance and digital.
Will it ever be perfect? Probably not especially while nations compete for global influence and dominance. | |||
"Privatise the Civil Service. " it would cost twice as much then | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. " Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. " Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? " It's no mystery to me why Nordic countries always rank highest in the good old 'World Happiness' rankings. "When it comes to happiness, the Nordic countries are clearly doing a lot of things right. For the eighth year in a row, Finland is the world’s happiest country, with its neighbors clustered close behind. “Nordic countries like Finland continue to benefit from universally available and high-quality health, education and social support systems. Inequality of wellbeing is also low,” said Ilana Ron-Levey, managing director at Gallup. Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden – the top four – remain in the same order as 2024. And Norway is again No. 7" https://edition.cnn.com/travel/worlds-happiest-countries-2025-wellness/index.html Maybe higher taxation has a positive effect on the population after all? 🤔 "The average tax rate in the world is 31.37%, the European average is 32% and the OECD average is 41.58%. In the Nordic countries however, the tax rates are higher with Denmark at 55.56%, Finland at 51.25%, Iceland at 46.22%, Norway at 47.2% and Sweden at 57%" | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? " Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x " The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? It's no mystery to me why Nordic countries always rank highest in the good old 'World Happiness' rankings. "When it comes to happiness, the Nordic countries are clearly doing a lot of things right. For the eighth year in a row, Finland is the world’s happiest country, with its neighbors clustered close behind. “Nordic countries like Finland continue to benefit from universally available and high-quality health, education and social support systems. Inequality of wellbeing is also low,” said Ilana Ron-Levey, managing director at Gallup. Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden – the top four – remain in the same order as 2024. And Norway is again No. 7" https://edition.cnn.com/travel/worlds-happiest-countries-2025-wellness/index.html Maybe higher taxation has a positive effect on the population after all? 🤔 "The average tax rate in the world is 31.37%, the European average is 32% and the OECD average is 41.58%. In the Nordic countries however, the tax rates are higher with Denmark at 55.56%, Finland at 51.25%, Iceland at 46.22%, Norway at 47.2% and Sweden at 57%"" Everything I have seen about this seems to indicate it works. It would be interesting to understand how it works, because here in the UK some areas do not generate the rate of taxes as others, this gives us a very distorted input / output. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought." Average Weekly Hours in China averaged 48.23 Hours from 2022 until 2025, reaching an all time high of 49.10 Hours in January of 2025 and a record low of 46.20 Hours in April of 2022. source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Average weekly hours of work for full-time workers in the United Kingdom 36.9 hours (1st quarter 2000 to 4th quarter 2024 ONS) | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought. Average Weekly Hours in China averaged 48.23 Hours from 2022 until 2025, reaching an all time high of 49.10 Hours in January of 2025 and a record low of 46.20 Hours in April of 2022. source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Average weekly hours of work for full-time workers in the United Kingdom 36.9 hours (1st quarter 2000 to 4th quarter 2024 ONS) " You have to bear in mind that minimum (or living) wage is linked to cost of living (although sadly not closely enough these days). The cost of living, including rent, is 55% lower in China than the UK. For India it's 259% lower. Hence wages may appear ridiculously low compared to the UK but without taking into account required living costs it's a false comparison. But yes. Manufacturing in the UK, US or Europe will always be at a higher cost than the likes of China, the Far East and India. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought. Average Weekly Hours in China averaged 48.23 Hours from 2022 until 2025, reaching an all time high of 49.10 Hours in January of 2025 and a record low of 46.20 Hours in April of 2022. source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Average weekly hours of work for full-time workers in the United Kingdom 36.9 hours (1st quarter 2000 to 4th quarter 2024 ONS) You have to bear in mind that minimum (or living) wage is linked to cost of living (although sadly not closely enough these days). The cost of living, including rent, is 55% lower in China than the UK. For India it's 259% lower. Hence wages may appear ridiculously low compared to the UK but without taking into account required living costs it's a false comparison. But yes. Manufacturing in the UK, US or Europe will always be at a higher cost than the likes of China, the Far East and India. " There is no viable comparison, it is economically more attractive to offshore manufacturing. In the future I can see the UK being a manufacturing destination for countries that have outperformed us over the years, driving up their economies to a point it becomes cheaper to offshore to us. This is how economics and capital evolve. Wealth follows productivity, and productivity follows investment. | |||
| |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought." It should never happen though, isn't that the whole point of having it in the first place, to ensure a certain standard of living amongst the population as a whole. Mrs x | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought.It should never happen though, isn't that the whole point of having it in the first place, to ensure a certain standard of living amongst the population as a whole. Mrs x" No, only among those working full time. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought.It should never happen though, isn't that the whole point of having it in the first place, to ensure a certain standard of living amongst the population as a whole. Mrs x" Yes, it is but as they say, for every action, there is a reaction. We have walked away from manufacturing due too cheap offshore alternatives. There have been many pushes to buy British, I'm not sure that is even a thing now?? We rely on global markets to meet a lot of our essentials, from tech and white goods to food, clothing, and everything in between. We are too expensive as a nation to produce the basics competitively, and this leaves us with a problem longterm and it also highlights a deeper issue, with the growing number of vacant jobs in sectors we no longer value. | |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought.It should never happen though, isn't that the whole point of having it in the first place, to ensure a certain standard of living amongst the population as a whole. Mrs x Yes, it is but as they say, for every action, there is a reaction. We have walked away from manufacturing due too cheap offshore alternatives. There have been many pushes to buy British, I'm not sure that is even a thing now?? We rely on global markets to meet a lot of our essentials, from tech and white goods to food, clothing, and everything in between. We are too expensive as a nation to produce the basics competitively, and this leaves us with a problem longterm and it also highlights a deeper issue, with the growing number of vacant jobs in sectors we no longer value. " That may all be true but why a radical change to the minimum wage? It wouldn't benefit the workforce only those who own the means of production. And if a job is vacant, surely it's more desirable to perform a job if it pays well rather than if it pays poorly, Mrs x | |||
"All state benefits to be based on contributions. Minimum 5 years contributions to receive any benefit, no exceptions. Non nationals 10 years." Seems someone doesn't know what no recourse to public funds means for non nationals | |||
"All state benefits to be based on contributions. Minimum 5 years contributions to receive any benefit, no exceptions. Non nationals 10 years. Seems someone doesn't know what no recourse to public funds means for non nationals " That would be me haha, what does that mean? Mrs x | |||
| |||
"“throwing capitalism under a bus,” I meant calling for the abolition of stock markets, private central banks, fiat currency, and replacing private investment with state loans“ I actually believe in capitalism, my suggestions remove parasitic aspects of the system that we already have. State loans being the exception. I don’t intend state loans to replace private investment but to augment private investment. Chinese businesses have the advantage of state loans and we struggle to compete. It’s a major reason why China is winning at our expense. We need a system that rewards productivity. The only way to gain security for individuals, corporations or nations is for them to produce more than they consume. Parasitic factors prevent this, they are counterproductive. To become more productive we need to manufacture, however we can’t compete with China or India in manufacturing, not without a radical changes to employment laws, minimum wages, and our political values. Our economy has evolved past low cost mass production. We are in a globalised, high cost environment, where we expect to consume cheaply and earn well. You just made an argument that the capitalism we have is failing. I don’t think you intended to do that. No, what I’ve pointed out is that our economy and the capital that underpins it has evolved. We now operate in a high cost, consumption driven, global environment. The nature of capital has adapted alongside our transition. We can’t simply revert to an earlier model the economy and social structure that supported it no longer exist. Capitalism evolves, it never stands still. That's the nature of everything. Evolution, devolution, everything changes. I challenge you to come up with something that stays the same. That is my point. Capitalism changes continuously and with it the economy and social structures. Making money isn't the problem. Business need to do so to survive. What IS the issue is the pursuit of profit, often obscenely so, at the expense of the public, employees and society as a whole. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Company's don't need to make 'record profits' year on year. Jobs shouldn't be cut to compensate for changes in taxation and running costs just to maintain profit levels that end up benefiting just shareholders, when a business can easily survive and thrive on lower profit margins. And I'll say it again. The essentials to live (water, power and essential public services) should be run on a not for profit basis rather than as a means for the few to get rich at the expense of people just trying to survive. I would argue that people do need to be billionaires, it is the driving force for innovation and growth. Do they need a billion pounds, no, but that is the by-product of successful ambition being realised. Companies need to do better than the year before to attract investment, this is what I mean by the capital will change. Investment flows into high returns, and stops on low. The essential services being publicly owned is a political decision, and I don't think the nation would put up much of a fight if water and energy were brought back into state control. Why does 'growth' need to equate to profit? Companies can grow without excessive profits being handed to shareholders. They can instead be reinvested in the business, paid to employees, and used to reduce prices which will itself generate additional business through improved value for money for customers. And no. Nobody needs to be a billionaire. Whether it's just on paper or money in the bank, it's just money sat in the pockets of the few rather than being put to good use. It would take 2,740 years to spend £1bn at £1k per day, 27 at £100k per day and even at a million a day you'd get over 2 1/2 years to whittle it away. Putting wealth back into the public domain stimulates the economy. People can't spend money they don't have on good and services. If consumers don't have the funds, businesses don't make money. The 1% holding and hoarding all the profits doesn't support business or industry, it kills it. Capitalism and economies aren’t perfect, but they remain the most effective systems we’ve developed so far for generating innovation, progress, and opportunities. If you are talking about large scale wealth redistribution or enforced limits on wealth, where has this worked in practice? Has any country successfully implemented a system where extreme wealth is capped and redistributed in a way that boosts longterm economic growth, and doesn't stifle innovation? Can I ask just one question please? Ok I know this is now tge second question but hopefully you'll give me some leeway here. So what is the 'radical change' required towards minimum wage and what would this look like in your vision? Mrs x The reference to radical change in minimum wage goes back to the earlier comment from another poster about manufacturing in China and producing more than we consume. Our economy has evolved with our society. We no longer manufacture at scale because UK labour costs are too high compared to countries like China or India. So, we benefit from importing goods produced using their low cost workforces while protecting our own workforce through minimum wage laws and employment rights. This works for us as consumers, we get cheap goods without needing to adopt the wages or conditions that make those goods cheap in the first place. If we were to startup a large scale manufacturing base here while maintaining minimum wage, the cost of production would exceed the cost of what we can import it for, and consumers would never accept the price shock. To compete directly with low cost economies, we would need to reduce the minimum wage significantly and that is not going to happen, in my lifetime I would have thought.It should never happen though, isn't that the whole point of having it in the first place, to ensure a certain standard of living amongst the population as a whole. Mrs x Yes, it is but as they say, for every action, there is a reaction. We have walked away from manufacturing due too cheap offshore alternatives. There have been many pushes to buy British, I'm not sure that is even a thing now?? We rely on global markets to meet a lot of our essentials, from tech and white goods to food, clothing, and everything in between. We are too expensive as a nation to produce the basics competitively, and this leaves us with a problem longterm and it also highlights a deeper issue, with the growing number of vacant jobs in sectors we no longer value. That may all be true but why a radical change to the minimum wage? It wouldn't benefit the workforce only those who own the means of production. And if a job is vacant, surely it's more desirable to perform a job if it pays well rather than if it pays poorly, Mrs x" Yes, that is how our society has been set up with a legal minimum wage and employment laws. This prevents us from producing certain goods competitively and is the reason it is cheaper to import from other countries than to manufacture them ourselves. When I said there would need to be radical change to the minimum wage, it was a paradoxical statement. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Online sales tax to encourage retail and high street Incentives for companies that employ lots of people (i.e higher rates for those with payroll costs as a higher percentage of turnover) Simplify all income taxes, probably a single progressive tax Wealth tax on assets over a certain amount Introduce US style tax for UK citizens on worldwide income and wealth Remove means testing on all benefits so that richer people feel they get something back for the tax they pay Go back to basics and give more money to the people that really need it (I.e. those with disabilities etc.) and remove/reduce/time limit those to people who can work Financial incentives for companies paying higher salaries Higher corporation tax, offset by better incentives for investment " Don't forget the disabled people who can work, at least to some extent, but still incur significant extra costs for simply existing. Those disabled people should be able to claim benefits and work. It costs me over £600 a month just to have 1hr per workday of support to get ready for work. Despite a decent salary, that is simply NOT affordable! And that's just the care costs. Add in the wheelchair, the electric add on for the wheelchair, the home adaptations and the fact that everything designed for disabled people has an extra 0 added, and you get a flavour. Scope research showed that a household with one disabled person in it requires an additional £1100 per month to have the same standard of living as a household with no disabled people in. | |||
| |||
"[PIP removed by poster at 02/04/25 23:55:25]" | |||
"Online sales tax to encourage retail and high street Incentives for companies that employ lots of people (i.e higher rates for those with payroll costs as a higher percentage of turnover) Simplify all income taxes, probably a single progressive tax Wealth tax on assets over a certain amount Introduce US style tax for UK citizens on worldwide income and wealth Remove means testing on all benefits so that richer people feel they get something back for the tax they pay Go back to basics and give more money to the people that really need it (I.e. those with disabilities etc.) and remove/reduce/time limit those to people who can work Financial incentives for companies paying higher salaries Higher corporation tax, offset by better incentives for investment Don't forget the disabled people who can work, at least to some extent, but still incur significant extra costs for simply existing. Those disabled people should be able to claim benefits and work. It costs me over £600 a month just to have 1hr per workday of support to get ready for work. Despite a decent salary, that is simply NOT affordable! And that's just the care costs. Add in the wheelchair, the electric add on for the wheelchair, the home adaptations and the fact that everything designed for disabled people has an extra 0 added, and you get a flavour. Scope research showed that a household with one disabled person in it requires an additional £1100 per month to have the same standard of living as a household with no disabled people in. " You must also know by now though that people with disabilities are an easy punch bag? As evidenced in some of the tone deaf posts, especially the reply in response to your own on the face of it difficult story. 100s of public funded schemes are open to abuse and near nobody but the ones committing fraud would be against stopping that from happening. It is obvious to state that, doesn't really need to be said. It's more criminal that people who are genuine have to feel subhuman to gain help. I've never seen evidence of toxic blame culture being positive for anyone. Example I'm confident will support what I'm saying: check back in four years at how many jobs Trump tariffs creates. | |||
