Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists and Capitalists should not set the agenda! watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Capitalism is the best (Not crony capitalism with funny money)
    Socialism doesn't work because eventually everyone run out of everyone else's money
    Communism is evil.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Raw capitalism which puts faith in the free market to fix every single industry is not good, nor are a lot of industries which are supported by government funding, because those industries will continually inflate prices because they know the government will continue to pay up. This can be seen in university funding too.

    Socialism and the centralisation of power taken away from families and given to the State is abhorrent and a definite reduction in freedom for everybody involved. Why we accept this so readily is the level of propaganda we've fallen to in the last 60 years. I love how people say they want freedom from totalitarianism, then say in the same breath they want greater welfare than the Conservatives offer. The cognitive dissonance is real, lads.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Explain how that is relevant to "you mistake the means of some socialists for the mistakes of all socialists"
    The means - using civil servants to run industry - is the mistake of all socialists. It is what can lead to the catastrophe of communism where the "leader" is the head of a single corporation that runs the industry of a country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Bupdeeboowah;60003829]1. With a 100% tax, there would be no incentive for Branson to do anything more to do anything different with his company. This would be detrimental to not only him, but also Virgin's customers, as innovation and the strive to improve the company's quality of service will no longer be a priority to Branson and his company.{/QUOTE]

    An income of about £1m a year would satisfy most normal desires. His desire for power can be further satisfied because he has ownership of his company.

    2. With a 100% tax band companies and individuals would just be channel their profits to offshore countries, leaving the country with a net loss in revenue collected by the HMRC.
    Only if we let them

    3. Who owns the company? Certainly not the workers if the company is not a full partnership, or if they do not own any shares. Likewise, shouldn't workers also be liable for the company's losses in your examples?
    Ownership is established in the normal way, according to the amount of equity (shares) owned. As a result they also experience loss of dividends and equity value if there are losses.

    4. Your corporation tax scheme is unprincipled. It may even end up with some companies posting a post-tax loss, despite having made a pre-tax profit. Companies will also just leave the country and move to neighbouring Ireland where the corporation tax rate is far lower.
    Yes, it would lead to large corporates being replaced by smaller ones, which is the objective of the change in law.

    5. Strategic UK ownership is illegal under EU law: see the Factortame cases. Your proposals will require the UK to leave the EU before such schemes can be implemented.
    Yes, a country can only have a non-corporate, non-socialist economy outside the EU.

    6. Your small business exemption would be used by people to hide their earnings from the taxman by creating shell companies. This has happened before in the UK with the Entrepreneurs' relief (if I can recall correctly, or if not some other tax exemption for entrepreneurs which had a high limit), with the self-employed setting up companies to make use of the tax exemption, instead of letting their earnings be charged under the income tax.
    It would specifically exclude income from other shareholdings and rents. Only bona fide trading, industrial and commercial companies such as window cleaners, small software startups, small textiles, electricians etc.

    PS: Respect for your knowledge of venture capital schemes!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    What exactly was the lesson of 20th C economic history?
    Name:  eugdppercapita7080.jpg
Views: 23
Size:  18.0 KB

    The economy of the UK flatlined in the 1970s as public ownership expanded to a large percentage of industries. Italy did the same.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dumachi)
    Capitalism is the best (Not crony capitalism with funny money)
    Socialism doesn't work because eventually everyone run out of everyone else's money
    Communism is evil.
    These are not the only choices. We can act according to our personal ethics and adjust the way the country is run on an issue by issue basis. Like gardeners - gardening is the best we can do because those who "plan" on the grand scale have no idea what they are doing, if they did they would use the capitalist system to make vast fortunes, beyond even the wildest dreams of Mr Gates.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The means - using civil servants to run industry - is the mistake of all socialists. It is what can lead to the catastrophe of communism where the "leader" is the head of a single corporation that runs the industry of a country.
    But my comment is that you are confusing the means of SOME socialists for the ends of ALL.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    But my comment is that you are confusing the means of SOME socialists for the ends of ALL.
    I am stating that public sector ownership is the essence of socialism. Even "New" Labour massively expanded public sector size and wages. For all practical purposes this is also the end pursued by socialism. It is what distinguishes socialism from other ideas such as conservatism and liberalism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I am stating that public sector ownership is the essence of socialism. Even "New" Labour massively expanded public sector size and wages. For all practical purposes this is also the end pursued by socialism. It is what distinguishes socialism from other ideas such as conservatism and liberalism.
    However it isn't. Social Ownership is what is important in socialism and state ownership is only one way of acheiving this. Also new labour were social democratic.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.