Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Brits are still inherently Capitalist


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, winkie said:

Who cares what they have got.....wealth doesn't make them any better, better people or happier....It is what others have not got, or have no possibility in getting, even the basics.

Wealthy people have the responsibility of giving some of it away.....gifted vis tax or gifted via charity. ;)

Watch the Schiff clip. I think you might like it.

Lunchtime viewing! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Too many people seem to value two things - money and convenience, and have royally messed up the country in the pursuit of both, calling it "progress" (and hugely increased stress and depression as a result, but they're not tangible wealth and convenience so don't count). But don't lurch to the opposite extreme either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warlord said:

The socialist HPCers need to answer this question:

Are you prepared to drive wealth and capital out of the country and therefore turn us into Zimbabwe/Venezuela?

Because that's precisely what confiscatory taxation does.

Well Zimbabwe and Venezula (and South Africa) were already blowing themselves up decades ago in the first place mainly due to how spellboundingly unequal and mismanaged they were under the capitalists oligarchs, with no real middle class and relatively little manufacturing productivity (and run as police/garrison states).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

Well Zimbabwe and Venezula (and South Africa) were already blowing themselves up decades ago in the first place mainly due to how spellboundingly unequal and mismanaged they were under the capitalists oligarchs, with no real middle class and relatively little manufacturing productivity (and run as police/garrison states).

Nonsense. The people in charge of SA, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela are all Marxist and have been since the mid 90's  (and in Zimbabwe's case since the early 80's!)

Edited by Warlord
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, msi said:

About to chew threw 10's of Millions of innocents? ?

No, but what we're going through is disruptive upheaval enough and matters could  get worse before they get better - Boris Johnson's an idiot and Brexit is a leap into the dark, but they're signs that things are just not working anymore and post-Thatcher Britain has gotten too ossified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Warlord said:

Nonsense. The people in charge of SA, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela are all Marxist and have been since the mid 90's  (and in Zimbabwe's case since the early 80's!)

They're the opportunistic crooks (or unrealistic revolutionaries) that have been running the show after the original European descended oligarchs manifestly failed by the 1980s into the early 1990s - they're the outgrowth of the millions of abysmally uneducated and dispossessed slum dwellers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

They're the opportunistic crooks (or unrealistic revolutionaries) that have been running the show after the original European descended oligarchs manifestly failed by the 1980s into the early 1990s - they're the outgrowth of the millions of abysmally uneducated and dispossessed slum dwellers. 

Zimbabwe was relatively rich before Mugabe took over with his thugs and Marxist policies (including confiscatory taxes and then land) .

Same for Venezuela before Chavez destroyed it. The worlds biggest oil reserves yet the people aren't fed.

SA is unique due to apartheid but again Commies took over (ANC) and have plundered it.

Notice a pattern here ? 

 

Edited by Warlord
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Warlord said:

Zimbabwe was relatively rich before Mugabe took over with his thugs and Marxist policies (including confiscatory taxes and then land) .

Same for Venezuela before Chavez destroyed it. The worlds biggest oil reserves yet the people aren't fed.

SA is unique due to apartheid but again Commies took over (ANC) and have plundered it.

Notice a pattern here ? 

 

+1

I was there (in South Africa) ... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people who bandy terms like "Marxist" about, never seem to have actually read any Marx?

It's very odd.

Is it a prole thing? Laziness? Stupidity?

When I schooled for a while in Winchester I had a wonderful old history professor (whose name sadly now escapes me). The take home from Marx is that he was extremely opposed to any form of nationalism. You can't have leftwing nationalist Marxism. It's literally incompatible as a construct. You can have leftwing nationalism of course (which is where Mugabe would fall), but even then, that's usually just a form of populism dressed up in the particular clothes that suit. (We reside under a form of populism now of course. It's never ended well anywhere before and won't now).

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, byron78 said:

 (We reside under a form of populism now of course. It's never ended well anywhere before and won't now).

It's an inevitable consequence of the alternative getting more and more disconnected with reality and fecking everything up in the process. You end up with two frankly lousy choices, and when you reach the situation where the status quo holds no hope at all for the future it's no surprise that people start to go with the populists. And when the status quo resorts to insulting and belittling those that made that move, head in the sand about the situation that brought it about, things accelerate. They shoulder all the blame for bringing things to that position.

Being left with a choice between the status quo that has made such an abhorrent mess of things, and the largely populist alternative that revels in ignorance and banality it's no surprise I have no faith at all in "progress" or the future in general. Usually what both want is pathetic.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

I thought all tax take was theft?

Yes....at the point of a gun if needs be. Threats of violence by one group of people on another group is a mark of socialism. All tax demanding governments must be, of necessity,  be socialist. 

........'nice' people with threats.....hmmmm 

?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warlord said:

Zimbabwe was relatively rich before Mugabe took over with his thugs and Marxist policies (including confiscatory taxes and then land) .

Same for Venezuela before Chavez destroyed it. The worlds biggest oil reserves yet the people aren't fed.

SA is unique due to apartheid but again Commies took over (ANC) and have plundered it.

Notice a pattern here ? 

 

Venezuela isn't Marxist. Like the rest of Latin America they are in thrall to the cult of the strongman (Bolivarianism). Most of the Venezuelan economy is in private hands, where it's always been (notable exception, the oil industry). Last time I looked general taxation was lower there than in the US.

The Harvard Index of Economic Complexity cites both the Venezuelan and Zimbabwean economies among half-a-dozen of the world's Biggest Losers, 2007-17. Worryingly, the UK is on the same short-list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cnick said:

Yes....at the point of a gun if needs be. Threats of violence by one group of people on another group is a mark of socialism. All tax demanding governments must be, of necessity,  be socialist. 

........'nice' people with threats.....hmmmm 

?

Govt is a legal entity, ergo taxation is not theft while tax evasion is potentially a crime.

It's really very simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, byron78 said:

Why do people who bandy terms like "Marxist" about, never seem to have actually read any Marx?

It's very odd.

Is it a prole thing? Laziness? Stupidity?

When I schooled for a while in Winchester I had a wonderful old history professor (whose name sadly now escapes me). The take home from Marx is that he was extremely opposed to any form of nationalism. You can't have leftwing nationalist Marxism. It's literally incompatible as a construct. You can have leftwing nationalism of course (which is where Mugabe would fall), but even then, that's usually just a form of populism dressed up in the particular clothes that suit. (We reside under a form of populism now of course. It's never ended well anywhere before and won't now).

Same people who give the soundbite of 'Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money' and that being a Nazi is being socialist (national socialism, geddit).

 

Ask them to state 3 tenents from Marx and they go all quiet. Same when you ask them about what true Capitalism means. You just get given youtube videos

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, cnick said:

Yes....at the point of a gun if needs be. Threats of violence by one group of people on another group is a mark of socialism. All tax demanding governments must be, of necessity,  be socialist. 

........'nice' people with threats.....hmmmm 

?

Another black and white "if it's not aligned with my view it's the opposite extreme, all the same" way of looking at things. With that degree of simplification only authoritarianism or anarchy are meaningful. In reality you need more than the tiniest hint of socialism to make something socialist, just as much as a hint of capitalism doesn't make a system capitalist.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warlord said:

 

Notice a pattern here ? 

 

I notice a pattern of sprawling estates/penthouses/mansions a few miles away from slum sprawls and failed state status kept just about at bay through perpetual paramilitary force in all 3 countries (no matter who's in charge).

And South Africa is Commie now, despite the rhetoric of the ANC? It's decades after decades after decades of cronyism.

Cronyism of the oppressive regimes blew up Libya and Syria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Govt is a legal entity, ergo taxation is not theft while tax evasion is potentially a crime.

It's really very simple.

who makes those laws? Pompous politicians.

Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not.

In terms of Inheritance Tax if you had an estate worth millions or billions you would avoid and put it in a trust or foundation for your kids,  Anyone who inherits a modest estate will be clobbered by a 40% tax. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, byron78 said:

Why do people who bandy terms like "Marxist" about, never seem to have actually read any Marx?

It's very odd.

Is it a prole thing? Laziness? Stupidity?

When I schooled for a while in Winchester I had a wonderful old history professor (whose name sadly now escapes me). The take home from Marx is that he was extremely opposed to any form of nationalism. You can't have leftwing nationalist Marxism. It's literally incompatible as a construct. You can have leftwing nationalism of course (which is where Mugabe would fall), but even then, that's usually just a form of populism dressed up in the particular clothes that suit. (We reside under a form of populism now of course. It's never ended well anywhere before and won't now).

Your knowledge of Marx and Marxists is incomplete. Karl Marx thought workers should be protected from low cost immigrant labour (https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/)

Kier Hardy was of the same opinion, campaigning against Russian coal miners working in Scottish pits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho, You should be able accumulate as much as you like, without punitive taxation either as you earn or retrospectively.

The rules you should adhere to are

* You should do this without using excessive debt (floating to raise capital is fine)

* you should not behave in an aggressively monopolistic manner

I don't believe Amazon have done either, despite their dominance. 

Bezos' 'wealth' on the other hand is funny money based on the stock market valuation and loose rules around corporation tax. Amazon's profitability bears little relation to it. Tomorrow he could easily 'lose' 40 billion of his net worth. The only way for him to realise that wealth is to liquidate his holdings in Amazon at the current share price of Amazon, which, fluctuates like crazy.

Let's say a 50% tax rate was applied on wealth. How would he pay that? If he dumped 50% of his holdings on the market, what would happen to the price?

I was him, I'd ask how exactly you expect me to  pay it. It's not his fault that the stock market is bonkers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.