[Closed] 'Champagne Socialism' or absolute belief?

As for the OP.. You're possibly looking for a fight with your friend where perhaps there isn't a fight to have.. You should definitely be exploring your motives and maybe even questioning your friendship

Most of my friends are my best political sparring partners, this has gone on since 1981,theres more to be gained from differences than concensus, diversity innit !

Good point stabaliser. All those bankers railing at the over-regulation of their 'industry' didn't seem to mind socialism too much when it bailed their arses out.

They seem to have got over their brief flirtation with it now though

Phew

Extends to civil society too. 'Oh my view of the golf course is going to ruined by a ghastly new primary school' I'm going to write to my MP' yadda yadda

Interesting Thread, as a result I have asked myself how "Socilaist" am I?

Kids go to the nearest school, because to quote my wife "all schools should be of the same standard" I agree with her, but has been interesting how much stuff at home we have ended up doing.

Have no private medical, NHS does a bang up job whenever I/family come into contact with it.

In principle think that utilities like water/electricity/sewage should be government provided funded from general taxation.

I would say every one should not be taxed on income at all until it has surpassed a decent minimum wage

I ride a bike to work every day (does this count as a "Socilaist" policy, i'm not sure)

But then...

I don't give to any charities. (is this anti "Socilaist" thing or just mark me out as a selfish ****)

Don't really understand why we have 40% tax bracket (no I don't earn enough to pay it) to punish individuals - tax the crap out of large companies by all means

Find it difficult to understand the place of unions/strikes in the modern world.

All the "Socilaist" stuff on social media, its really is sanctimonious crap. I would wager a lot of money that's pretty much why labour lost the election.

And as for teachers who moan about their job.........

Oh and I have never voted for any "Socilaist" party.

Bex - what have you started?! 😀

Don't really understand why we have 40% tax bracket (no I don't earn enough to pay it) to punish individuals

As for unions, I take it you've never had an employer try to impose harsher pay/conditions on you as a member of a work force? Without unions, workers are powerless against exploitation and abuse. The fundemental 'ideal' workforce from a pure capitalist point of view is a bonded slave workforce, treated like beasts of burden and only given the nutrition required to sustain efficient production, and disposed of cheaply once spent. THAT is the true right wing view. The Left wing view sees everyone as humans, the modern right begrudgingly cedes that they 'have' to treat everyone as humans.

Really? Surely it's to tax the money that they have to just spend on luxuries at a higher rate than the money they have for essentials

wouldn't it be better to do that by going back to the seventies and reintroducing higher rate VAT on luxury items - you know, televisions, jewellery, luxury sporting goods like yachts, golf clubs and bicycles?

That's the first time you've posted anything that makes sense ninfan..
I'd back that policy

Hang on a minute. Are we having an outbreak of common sense and agreement here?

Well that policy is obviously a non-starter then 😉

I agree with ninfan, except for the bicycles bit. Not a luxury if you use it to commute and do the shopping. 🙂

[quote=vickypea said]I agree with ninfan, except for the bicycles bit. Not a luxury if you use it to commute and do the shopping.

Ok, bikes costing over £200 then 🙂

Ok, bikes costing over £200 then

Seems fair, we would label it the 'Wiggins tax' cause of all the nouveau riche that have flocked to cycling in recent years.

Not a luxury if you use it to commute and do the shopping

Point of order, the higher rate of VAT was initially introduced just on petrol, then widened to include luxury goods - so 'commuting and doing the shopping' is no defence, historical precedent shows us that it's a luxury. I am sure 'back to the seventies' Jezza and his party will will agree.

Problem with 'luxury VAT' is it assumes high earners are going to actually spend their money on taxable [i]stuff[/i] rather than power and influence and land and the ability to generate more money.

That's why Jezza is going to introduce 90% capital gains tax!

Import duty (and there aren't many that aren't imported) on complete bicyles is 14%, which is pretty high by modern standards. And then you have to pay the VAT on top of that. So they are taxed a lot

I don't know about other "luxury" items though. Although a very quick google indicates its the same for TVs.

Socialism doesn't have to be far left and capitalism doesn't have to be far right. Which is why I'm a life long, wishy washy, fence sitting liberal.

Jezza will only introduce it if Labour win the next election!

wouldn't it be better to do that by going back to the seventies and reintroducing higher rate VAT on luxury items - you know, televisions, jewellery, luxury sporting goods like yachts, golf clubs and bicycles?

Didn't somewhere (USA?) introduce a 'yacht tax' at some point (last 20 years or so)? IIRC it just meant that the rich that it was supposed to target stopped buying yachts and bought supercars/holiday homes/went on longer holidays etc instead. The government didn't get the tax revenue they expected and the people who lost out were the relatively low paid manual workers who bolted the yachts together.

If you're left wing, you're damned if you have, damned if you have not.

Have? Champagne socialist.

Have not? Politics of envy.

@ninfan I'd be happy to buy jewelry, bikes etc elsewhere in the EU are just bring them back. I buy the vast majority of my wine in France (100's of bottles) as it is not subject to the high levels of UK duty.

@luke, a few thoughts.

Schools should all be the same is a utopia, in practice they are not
Higher rates of tax based on income is the accepted norm, if you reduced the top rate you'd have to put up the rages on everyone else by a lot. Not practical.
No tax till above minimum wage, I personally think it's best for people to pay something as a principal
Taxing companies is very difficult these days, tax code is too complex and the EU makes it far too easy to dodge national taxes at a corporate level
My NHS experience is not so positive, my mum waited months for treatment appointments, eg was asked to wait 12 weeks for an MRI whuch in the end we paid for (£250) and got at notice. My mums back was so bad she was spending all day in bed and did so for months. We got a diagnosis from a Fremch doctor relative whuch proved 100% accurate but the GP/NHS just stalled and stalled. We don't spend enough on health in this country, it's badly in need of change

The easiest way we have to raise more tax is to put VAT on food like they have in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands etc. We'd then have far more revenue for the NHS, welfare etc. However politically it's not possible as people would not vote for it,

The quality of the results a school gets is generally the product of the behaviour of the kids that go to it.
The behaviour of kids is 100% the product of their parents. The fact we have so many people that are rubbish at parenting (for whatever reason) that is putting a lot of pressure on the system. Quite how you instill the desire to learn into a kid who's parent don't value education, I have no idea.

Putting your kids into a private school because the local ones are not good enough is only going to make the local schools more crap. This seems to be a very "non-Labour" thing to be doing.

but the GP/NHS just stalled and stalled

Oh come on.

You can't equate an individual doctor, or even two, with the whole NHS. They are totally different things for a start. You must REALLY REALLY want to believe the system is shit. Can't you see your rampant confirmation bias?

you could always do what a pretty hard core conservative friend of mine did. He's stood for election before for the conservatives and thinks 'Nige' is a great guy.

He had a neighbour he describes as a champagne socialist knock on his door. apparently they had previous in terms of political disputes.

Anyways, said neighbour had her daughter with her who was collecting for a local homeless person and the daughter asked my mate, let's call him Graham (cos that's his name) for a contribution.

Now this obviously doesn't fit with Graham's views but he didn't want to be rude in front of the daughter so he said, look, I've got a pile of leaves in my garden that need tidying up. If you can sweep them up for me I will give you a fiver and you can put that in the tin.

The daughter thought about it a minute and said hold on, why doesn't the homeless guy (I forget his name) come round and sweep them up for you and you can give the money straight to him?

With a wide smile Graham said "welcome to the conservative party".

Apparently the look on the mum's face was a picture.

Arbeit macht frei was this Grahams campaigning slogan?

@deadlarcy Council / Housing association property should be means tested on a regular basis. It was ridiculous Bob Crow took up a valuable asset in short supply when he could easily afford to buy his own property or rent in the private sector. He's the perfect example of a "Socilaist" on the take

No he is a man who made good and stayed true to his roots so that he could be a positive role model to other social housing tenants do they could also see what they could achieve in life. Jam if he had lived in a posh house you would say he was living unlike his members. I am starting to think that the only "principle" applied here is whatever allows you ro moan abut Bob crow.

FFS you would have it as ghetto only for the poor wouldnt you like a township bussing them in to clean your rubbish as you swan around europe drinking cheap plonk and see only very dark faces from your train
Out of interest what about those people well off enough to buy the house i assume you are livid about them being on the take as they really did deprive society of social housing..go one give us a wee rant on them will you.

The easiest way we have to raise more tax is to put VAT on food

Aye lets accept that high earners wont pay tax, lets accept that companies wont pay tax and then lets tax the essentials required to survive so that we can make sure that we continue to switch the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor - clearly the poor pay a higher % of their income on food.
WOW Jam even ninfan trollign would not suggest that

What exactly is your moral code.

 

I have to admit that I don't think Bob Crow is doing the right thing by taking a council house. "To each according to his need" should be the motto, no?

The reason Crow stayed in his house was that he liked living there and couldn't afford to buy his own place in the area.

You have to pay for council houses don't you?

AFAIK "council house"=/="free house".

Are they subsidised by other council-tax payers? Or does the rent paid/housing benefit paid to the council (if that's how it works) cover the cost of maintaining the houses?

He would have been paying rent, but he also would have been blocking the house and keeping a family in a B&B. I don't know where his house was or what the demand was like, but in my view if you can afford private rented you shouldn't be blocking social housing.

But, he was a Marxist (IIRC) so he would have though he was entitled to a house provided by the state and paying money to a private landlord would probably have given him an earlier heart attack.

There is also the possibility that Crow considered the place his family's home and so wanted to continue to live there.

And re "blocking". How would you describe somebody exercising their right to buy?

And re "blocking". How would you describe somebody exercising their right to buy?

I don't really blame them, they get an asset for less than it's market value and (assuming they would have stayed) effectively puts all of the Council's next 20 years housing subsidy into one tidy package. It also has the effect of sprucing up the area for no public money as people are more inclined to look after something they have ownership of.

In theory, it also allows the councils to build new stock. They should have been forced to ring-fence the money for supplying additional social housing either themselves or through associations. But they weren't (AFAIK), so it is what it is.

There is also the possibility that Crow considered the place his family's home and so wanted to continue to live there.

AND his Marxist principles prevented him from buying it himself (which he could plainly afford to do).

I don't agree with his principles, but I can respect why he did what he did.

Strangely I'd like to quote 'Platoon' on this one.

King: Hey, Taylor. How in the **** you get here anyway? Why, you look educated.
Chris Taylor: I volunteered for it.
King: You did what?
Chris Taylor: I volunteered. I dropped out of college, and told them I wanted the infantry, combat, and Vietnam.
Crawford: You volunteered for this shit, man?
Chris Taylor: You believe that?
King: You's a crazy ****er, giving up college.
Chris Taylor: It didn't make much sense. I wasn't learning anything. I figured why should just the poor kids go off to war and the rich kids always get away with it?
King: Oh, I see. What we got here is a crusader.
Crawford: Sounds like it.
King: Shit. You gotta be rich in the first place to think like that. Everybody know the poor are always being ****ed over by the rich. Always have, always will.

Make of this what you will, but the luxury of hand-wringing is only available to the lucky few in the world who have the time and money to do so. The truly poor are too busy existing from one moment to the next.