Your most controversial view?

Probably that our country should issue breeding licenses, with only those deemed to be suitable as parents will legally be allowed to have a child.

So if you are not financially able to support a child, or have no concept of how to raise a healthy child, or have a criminal past, or have any kind of disease or genetic abnormality that is likely to be passed on, or meet any one of a number of other criteria that would classify you as undesirable, then you shall not be issued with a breeding license and having a child would result firstly in the child being taken off you and secondly with you being sentenced to a lengthy spell behind bars.

And yes, this post is absolutely serious.

Why not for jews?

As I said, I can't do that to my people.

I support a regressive taxation system ie: the middle classes pay more, and then the richer you get, the LESS you pay in tax. So tax becomes sorta like a curve, instead of a diagonal line upwards.

Like this:



Except maybe a bit more radical in that I'd have the regressive line start to curve a bit quicker.

If you're saying that we should make tax changes that are unfair, just for the sake of preventing rich people and large businesses from leaving the country, then you are being bullied by them and they are directly influencing a government. Companies already massively interfere with government decisions much more directly but I don't see how you can suggest that the changes you're suggesting don't count as corporate intervention.

It wouldn't be "corporate intervention" because it'd be a deliberate act by gov't to try and bring in more money, and increase competition, making Britain look quite attractive to companies (How many businesses are based in Dublin, because of favourable tax rates??). I did also say I'd like nice and cheap loans for ALL businesses. I'd also like lower taxes for ALL businesses.

Also, I should say Im a bit of a "third way" supporter ie: a social capitalist. (Much nicer phrase than "nationalist socialist" but that has HORRIBLE connotations... - Im also not a nationalist at all ) ie: supporting the poorest in society,the disabled, having a welfare state etc.... whilst saying the UK is OPEN FOR BUSINESS

Third way explained here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/458626.stm

A graduate tax instead of a blanket loan system would solve this issue. Only those who benefit from their degree in increased wages throughout their career would pay money back for the education they've received.

Xxx

Posted from TSR Mobile

I agree in theory but in practise its unavoidable to not be bullied. It's like engineering, their a small fraction of the British engineering industry left because to open an engineering business in the UK is absolutely laborious; H&S laws, Environmental laws, property laws, employment laws, tax laws, equality laws, industrial injury laws. So what does this mean if your a welder, machinist or studying for an engineering degree? Well you've just been priced out of a job. Even our own government won't pay for British workers for defence and renewable projects!

I'm not saying industry shouldn't be regulated but it needs to be simple and cheap not a thousand government agencies checking each issue out. Current goverments need to think about the ENTIRE consequences to passing new industry laws before pandering to general hysteria.

Personally i'd push for more SME and a heavy tax rate for large monopolies head quartered outside of the UK. US multinations pull billions out of the UK in profit and over the sea and yet even through they provide jobs they're typically part time unskilled and temporary. At least the British very wealthy spend their money in the UK on other businesses and people.

All of that is precisely why we need a shift away from capitalism and globalisation and towards public ownership. You're completely correct that imposing stricter environmental, tax and equality laws will probably make Britain "less friendly" towards business which will harm us financially. The solution to that is not to go, "Oh well then, bugger morality and let's forget about regulations", it's to realise that all of these problems are the product of a global economic system that gives psychopathic corporate institutions more power than ordinary people and that we therefore have to start reforming the system.

Perhaps we could start by founding state capitalist competitors that drive private enterprise out of business, and then later convert them to public companies.

I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about this. Companies that rake in absolutely massive profits and individuals of massive wealth should obviously have to pay more back to society than poorer individuals since they have a greater means of doing this. Anybody who cares about social and financial equality would agree with this. It is a complete fallacy to use the argument that decreasing taxes for the wealthy makes sense because it will ultimately bring in more money because, whilst it might technically be true, it is precisely this argument that is the driving cause of the absurd gap between the rich and poor. Trickle-down economics does not work. It was an absolutely massive betrayal to their values of Labour to pursue this policy and anybody in favour of it is not in favour of social equality.



But of course most people with a degree are going to benefit from 'increased' wages? What we need to be concerned about are the effects of the person's job, not their payslip. A professor of climate change is certainly going to 'benefit' in terms of higher than average wages but it doesn't change the fact that they've (probably) put their degree to the good of society.

You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created the problem in the first place.

So what magic capitalism out of existence? I don't support your view, but if I were to the best way I could see it working is for the state to regain control over the means of production through capitalism and then changing the structure of the economy internally.

How do you ensure the state's own companies don't end up being just as bad or worse than the companies you're trying to out-compete?

Same way you ensure the political system stops people from being killed by genocide, checks and balances and accountability and a bit of luck, and yes a bit of direction from a few dedicated technocrats. Most nations have not been born out of liberty coming from no where, a few dedicated individuals with a vision have rebelled and directed the country until the time it is ripe to help itself. As authoritarianism has been used to create a democracy, capitalism could be used to create socialism in the right hands.

In order to stop your own corporations from being worse than your competitor's, you need to regulate them more strongly. Hence their products will probably still be cheaper and you will not be able to out-compete them. On top of that, a truly sustainable socialist future is based on small-scale communal-ownership so you really don't want to start that off by having massive state-owned businesses.

How do you ensure the state's own companies don't end up being just as bad or worse than the companies you're trying tot out-compete?

Your not arguing with an ideology your arguing with economics. We're a capitalist country and everything your using, everything you enjoy has been built primarily because their was a financial interest in it. Unless you want to try something else (in which you'd be part of a tiny minority) this is what we're stuck with. Scare of the buisness and we're pretty much ****ed. However there is a 'Third way' which I believe can be implemented. It would basically be a high technology, high skilled economy supported by strong socialism and the removing off national infrustructure that is important to social fairness off the private market (i.e NHS, education, railways). It would however take massive changes to FE and HE (to provide highly skilled workers), industry regulations ect. Personally I don't think it would be difficult to achieve without something like 50-60% of people doing apprenticeships.