Will Socialism ever really be the answer?

[Bri w]

An economics teacher at a local school made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Gillard/Brown socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The teacher then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the Gillard/Brown plan". All grades will
be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (Substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the teacher told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, and gives to those who do nothing, no-one will try Or want to succeed.

It could NOT be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. --->> The next election. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:


1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation
__________________________________________________ ________________
Stolen from elsewhere.

In truth I find this an oversimplification because it doesn't take into account those that can't help themselves but there is a kernal of reality to it that I find disturbing.

[Paul the 6th]

Bri, this is brilliant and utterly depressing in equal measure.

And I've said this of the 'benefit culture*' for long time, why work and pay a shed load of tax when you can sit on your ass and get money for free.



* = n.b. benefit culture not relating to hardworking single parents or people with disabilities etc. it's the fully able bodied people who appear on Jeremy Kyle and claim that they have tried really hard to get a job for the past 5 years, but are then outed as spending all their time in the local boozer or on their playstation.

[Bibio]

yes but that does not take into account of man's want to better him/herself.

[Paul the 6th]

yes but that does not take into account of man's want to better him/herself.

Isn't the piece getting at the fact that when a persons efforts are averaged out and equalised, their want to better themselves is downtrodden?

[Bibio]

btw i have said the before and will say it again. the unemployed don't cost the public that much as what they receive the gov get back in tax/duty revenue. so for every £1 the unemployed get to survive off the state the gov end up getting around 70p of that back depending on what the money was spent on. what does cost the public money is WAR as for every bullet fired it costs the public 100% the price of that bullet then add in the cost of the gun and the person firing it and it soon adds up.

[Bri w]

btw i have said the before and will say it again. the unemployed don't cost the public that much as what they receive the gov get back in tax/duty revenue. so for every £1 the unemployed get to survive off the state the gov end up getting around 70p of that back depending on what the money was spent on. what does cost the public money is WAR as for every bullet fired it costs the public 100% the price of that bullet then add in the cost of the gun and the person firing it and it soon adds up.

But if the government didn't take as much off the workers the workers would have more to spend and the unemployed would be incentivised to work because there's more money for working and less for not working.

I agree about wasting money on arms. I wonder how well off other countries are that don't have the same defence spending.

[Bibio]

Norway, Sweden?

[andrewsmith]

http://i1034.photobucket.com/albums/a426/andrewsmith1708/5-60.gif

To the great wheats fields of the East with you Brian!! ;)

Socialism works as a concept (and is a absolutely brilliant idea), but in practice doesn't work due to the 'human factor'
The Norway version works but the catch 22 is 50%+ tax and you end up with Andreas Breivik's only being in Prison for 21 years for mass murder (Max sentence under Norwegian law, unless found insane). The one think they have got right is the Oil money, about 1% of it has been spent and the rest invested into renewables and long term investments (for when the oil runs out), like renewables research

[Sid Squid]

Bri, The simple answer is no, it cannot ever succeed, socialism is nothing more than the infantilism of squealing 'equality!' with no appreciation of the realities of how that might be achieved, or sustained when there is a societally financed structure to support all, regardless of the level of social responsibility demonstrated.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation
All the above true.
yes but that does not take into account of man's want to better him/herself.
Interesting you should say that, as I'd add to Bri's list:

6. If there is no possibility of failure, there is no purpose in success.

That's something that socialism can't take account of.

[dizzyblonde]

7: even in socialism, there is someone at the top of the tree to dictate."some, are more equal than others."

[Sid Squid]

7: even in socialism, there is someone at the top of the tree to dictate."some, are more equal than others."
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

[MisterTommyH]

Bri - That is brilliant and completely true.

Of course there will be exceptions - there will be those that cannot help themselves (that is who the welfare state is intended for, but it seems to have been extended). There will be those who would work and better them selves (and the country?) no matter what. But those are the extremes, and in actual fact the very few in comparison to the whole.

Seems a very good analogy for the majority of the population.

Might steal it.

[dizzyblonde]

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."



George Orwell plagiarized that, I believe from some Chinese dictator.

[Sid Squid]

George Orwell plagiarized that, I believe from some Chinese dictator.
I'm told it wasn't original, but I don't know where it came from. Some Maoist dictator sounds quite believable though.

Well whoever first said it, it makes the point though doesn't it?

[TamSV]

The following week the class adopted a model of pure capitalism. Whilst it appeared that opportunity was equal and endeavour would be rewarded, it soon became apparent that only 10% of the class owned 90% of the pencils.

90% of the class were left to complete their papers with their own blood and tears, resulting in very poor grades, all the while being lectured to by the pencilled elite that they would do better if only they would try harder and weren't so feckless and lazy.

Many of the 90% gave up. Others toiled on in a noble, but ultimately fruitless, attempt to improve their grades.

Some of the, for want of a better phrase, "underclass" attempted to steal a pencil or two. For this they were soundly beaten and expelled from school. Meanwhile, those with the pencils were caught fiddling the interbank lending rate and received a minor ticking off.


;)

[dizzyblonde]

I'm told it wasn't original, but I don't know where it came from. Some Maoist dictator sounds quite believable though.

Well whoever first said it, it makes the point though doesn't it?

Was just about to edit my post, declaration of independence it was paraphrased. However regardless of its origin never a true word eh!

[widepants]

The following week the class adopted a model of pure capitalism. Whilst it appeared that opportunity was equal and endeavour would be rewarded, it soon became apparent that only 10% of the class owned 90% of the pencils.

90% of the class were left to complete their papers with their own blood and tears, resulting in very poor grades, all the while being lectured to by the pencilled elite that they would do better if only they would try harder and weren't so feckless and lazy.

Many of the 90% gave up. Others toiled on in a noble, but ultimately fruitless, attempt to improve their grades.

Some of the, for want of a better phrase, "underclass" attempted to steal a pencil or two. For this they were soundly beaten and expelled from school. Meanwhile, those with the pencils were caught fiddling the interbank lending rate and received a minor ticking off.


;)
brilliant

[metalmonkey]

If Socialism isn't answer, what is the solution to the UK, European and the Global economy? The fractional banking system is not working all that well. We have a system based on infinite growth against finite resources.

[Bri w]

Bri - That is brilliant and completely true.

Of course there will be exceptions - there will be those that cannot help themselves (that is who the welfare state is intended for, but it seems to have been extended). .

Been waiting on someone remembering that a socialist society recognises, and supports, those who aren't able to do so. Cheers Mr T.

And then there were the Facists like Hitler who thought that it was better to kill off all those who were feeble...

And the right answer is...?

[Jackie_Black]

Current system will be patched up until global meltdown and then its everyman/woman for themselves. As soon as the oil is scarce all bets are off, but even in mad max 2 there is a system of capitalism, it just makes sense :-D

[TamSV]

And the right answer is...?

Benevolent dictatorship.

Just give me 5 years and I'll sort it all out.

After 5 years I'll call free and fair elections. Honest. :-D (Tony Blair "trust me" smiley)

[widepants]

we are not many steps away from total anarchy

[andrewsmith]

we are not many steps away from total anarchy

3 meals

[widepants]

there will always be someone willing to use whatever force they can ,to get whatever they want/need

[Jackie_Black]

It won't really matter whether we are socialists are not once the mighty U S of A goes to war with everyone over the last of the oil, then all the knacka nuke wielding countries start blowing **** up. Maybe the doleites have it right and they've seen it coming so would rather just play X-box all day.

[MisterTommyH]

Been waiting on someone remembering that a socialist society recognises, and supports, those who aren't able to do so. Cheers Mr T.

And then there were the Facists like Hitler who thought that it was better to kill off all those who were feeble...

And the right answer is...?


But it's not just a socialist ideology that recognises those that can't. It wasn't a socialist government that introduced the NHS so that everyone had access to healthcare.

In reality you need a balance of the two. There is a social responsibility to look after those that can't, but at the moment that seems to have been extended to those who can't be a*sed (to the detriment of those that need the help). BUT business is required to give government the money to provide this support... because government doesn't make money to pay for it.

Personally I'm a believer in libetarianism.

[embee]

All idealistic doctrines fall down because they use the argument of "fairness". The idea that everyone should be equal is fair, or it's fair that everyone should be able to prosper at someone else's expense, or anything in between, is simply a fallacy.

The fundamental flaw in free capitalism is the concept of continual growth. Year on year 7% growth simply cannot be sustained, it assumes an infinite resource. It will fall over sooner or later.

Total equality simply reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. Plus as pointed out, there's always someone who thinks they are entitled to tell everyone else how equal they should be. It won't work. Humans are not inherently benevolent, we are tribal, hateful, fearful etc etc. It only needs a small tilt in doctrine to result in another holocaust or another Yugoslavia or Rwanda. "Never again", yeah right, not till the next time anyway.

Life isn't fair, get over that and you can start to think of a vaguely workable system. Personally I have a very pessimistic view of the human race's future, it'll all end in tears eventually, and if you think that's unreasonable just scan the history books, we haven't changed.

Nice evening all.

[thulfi]

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!


Can't you?

[-Ralph-]

An economics teacher at a local school made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Gillard/Brown socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The teacher then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the Gillard/Brown plan". All grades will
be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (Substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the teacher told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, and gives to those who do nothing, no-one will try Or want to succeed.

It could NOT be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. --->> The next election. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:


1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation
__________________________________________________ ________________
Stolen from elsewhere.

In truth I find this an oversimplification because it doesn't take into account those that can't help themselves but there is a kernal of reality to it that I find disturbing.

:cheers:

Best thread I've seen for a long time Bri!

The wealthy already pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax. Not only a higher 40 or 50% tax rate, but that is of course calculated on a higher salary. Somebody on double the national average salary, pays 3 times the national average in income tax.

I'm looking at changing my sons after school childcare tonight from a Nursery to a Childminder, and if I don't find a childminder who accepts childcare vouchers which are tax free, I actually end up paying 40% more for the childcare. £243 in the voucher scheme, is only £145 if paid in my pay packet.

People think of 'tax free' being a wee bit of something back, for a higher rate tax payer it a bloody significant chunk!

[TamSV]

:cheers:

Best thread I've seen for a long time Bri!

The wealthy already pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax. Not only a higher 40 or 50% tax rate, but that is of course calculated on a higher salary. Somebody on double the national average salary, pays 3 times the national average in income tax.

I'm looking at changing my sons after school childcare tonight from a Nursery to a Childminder, and if I don't find a childminder who accepts childcare vouchers which are tax free, I actually end up paying 40% more for the childcare. £243 in the voucher scheme, is only £145 if paid in my pay packet.

People think of 'tax free' being a wee bit of something back, for a higher rate tax payer it a bloody significant chunk!

I'm not clear.

Is your complaint about a progressive tax system per se, the relative tax levels currently applied or the recent huge extension of social welfare (which you are currently seeking to get your own share of in the form of a child care tax break)?

[-Ralph-]

I'm not clear.

Is your complaint about a progressive tax system per se, the relative tax levels currently applied or the recent huge extension of social welfare (which you are currently seeking to get your own share of in the form of a child care tax break)?

My objection is to any further tax burden on the wealthy.

Getting a tax break that amounts to about 3% of your income tax & NI contribution, isn't exactly a burden on the welfare system. It's taking a little bit less of a contribution from someone who already contributes massively into that system, takes nothing out, and hasn't taken anything out his entire career.

A tax break is exactly what it says on the tin - giving the guy who looks at his payslip and takes a whipping every month, a bit of a break. If the welfare system delivered a kit kat, a coffee, and a thank you, that would be nice too.

[TamSV]

But if you and I are not to pay then who will?

I find this pound-swapping exercise with the middle classes (and the massive industry required to support it) far more objectionable than benefits for the unemployed. ISTM all this has achieved is an extension of a sense of entitlement to those who actually require no assistance.

If we need to tackle an element of the welfare state then that's the first target IMO.

Not having a dig at you Ralph. Your situation is far from unique. Merely a philosophical point.

I don't occupy any moral high ground BTW. My family has claimed the universal child benefit although I will soon be getting a letter confirming that it will now, quite rightly, be withdrawn. A decision I applaud.

[-Ralph-]

But if you and I are not to pay then who will?

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't pay, I'm suggesting we already pay enough and shouldn't be penalised any further.

I find this pound-swapping exercise with the middle classes (and the massive industry required to support it) far more objectionable than benefits for the unemployed. ISTM all this has achieved is an extension of a sense of entitlement to those who actually require no assistance

Totally see your point there, but I do also believe that higher earners already pay at least their fair share. If scrapping child care vouchers will save the welfare system a wad of cash by simplifying administration then I'd be all for it, so long as they just reduced my tax rate slightly to level it out. Losing £80 quid a month paid out in child benefit I can understand the logic, but me having to pay in yet ANOTHER £100 a month as a result of losing the child care vouchers, isn't something I'd be happy about.

[TamSV]

If, through the tax system, we valued productive work more than ownership of unproductive residential property or inherited wealth then you would be paying less income tax.

Earn £60k through productive work/making stuff/employing people and pay 40% tax. Make £60k on the sale of a house and pay nothing.

This "money for nothing" system gave us a huge housing bubble. Productive businesses were sold for the land they stood on and turned into half occupied "executive" flats. Huge swathes of former social housing in the hands of private landlords. Idiots up to their eyes in mortgage debt convincing themselves they're entrepeneurs.

If we had taken a different view - rewarded productive work instead of non-productive ownership of property - then perhaps we wouldn't be in the situation where the average wage can't buy the average house. Perhaps parents would have more choices about whether or not they have to work. And perhaps the state wouldn't be paying so many people not to look after their own kids.

That's a failure of capitalism, not of socialism.

[Specialone]

Tam, you are supposed to pay tax on earnings from a property sale when it's not your residence.

Also, the housing bubble explosion was caused by the labour party creating a false feel good economy using very low interest rates, if the rates were raised when the property prices started increasing untraditionally fast, we wouldn't have had the crash we did.

[Spank86]

Has anyone pointed out that the OP not only fails to demonstrate socialism its also much more radical than communism AND fails the interim steps that MArx and Engels insisted were necessary to achieve communism?

The teacher ought to have been failed herself.

[Spank86]

The wealthy already pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax. Not only a higher 40 or 50% tax rate, but that is of course calculated on a higher salary. Somebody on double the national average salary, pays 3 times the national average in income tax.
But you only pay the 40-50% on the extra.

If we both earn £34,370 we both pay the same rate of tax, if you earn another £10 you only pay the 40% on the extra 10, so £4. In a sense that is fair, if it was any other way then those who have the lowest pay would need to be paid more to survive and that would need to come out of the salary of those with higher pay.

So in essence I beleive it can go as tax or it can never be given in the first place but either way the economy will adjust itself over time to create a roughly similar wealth gap.


(cue "I know how the tax system works" reply)

[TamSV]

Tam, you are supposed to pay tax on earnings from a property sale when it's not your residence.

If you happen to have lived in the house then any gain is tax free. If not the, yes, you'll pay tax but at a significantly lower rate than the money you earn for doing something useful.

Also, the housing bubble explosion was caused by the labour party creating a false feel good economy using very low interest rates, if the rates were raised when the property prices started increasing untraditionally fast, we wouldn't have had the crash we did.

One of the first things the Labour Govt did was relinquish political control of interest rates, but I agree they did nothing to take any heat out of the market - which they could have done through taxation. It would have been political suicide of course. You can't go messing with people's bricks and mortar lottery tickets.

[Messie]

Will Socialism ever really be the answer?

It depends on the question you'e asking, it really does. If you want a truly unequal society, with 80% of the wealth belonging to 20% of the population, then 'no' it's not.
If you want a society that has a go at reducing inequality and attempts to include all members then, perhaps 'yes'
But without a total dictatorship then, in reality we get a mish mash of socialism and capitalism, with one or two other monetary policies thrown in for seasoning.

[Dave-the-rave]

The following week the class adopted a model of pure capitalism. Whilst it appeared that opportunity was equal and endeavour would be rewarded, it soon became apparent that only 10% of the class owned 90% of the pencils.

90% of the class were left to complete their papers with their own blood and tears, resulting in very poor grades, all the while being lectured to by the pencilled elite that they would do better if only they would try harder and weren't so feckless and lazy.

Many of the 90% gave up. Others toiled on in a noble, but ultimately fruitless, attempt to improve their grades.

Some of the, for want of a better phrase, "underclass" attempted to steal a pencil or two. For this they were soundly beaten and expelled from school. Meanwhile, those with the pencils were caught fiddling the interbank lending rate and received a minor ticking off.


;)

When I were a lad those with the pencils lived in Troon and the pencil stealers lived in Kilwinning. :smt040

[TamSV]

When I were a lad those with the pencils lived in Troon and the pencil stealers lived in Kilwinning. :smt040

LOL.

I started out in Onthank in Kilmarnock but have since amassed my own small share of the residual pencils. :p

[Spank86]

The people with the pens of course, live in England :cool:

[dizzyblonde]

The people with the pens of course, live in England :cool:

....and Are called Pauline. Work in the Job centre in Roysten Vasey ;)

[-Ralph-]

But you only pay the 40-50% on the extra.

If we both earn £34,370 we both pay the same rate of tax, if you earn another £10 you only pay the 40% on the extra 10, so £4. In a sense that is fair, if it was any other way then those who have the lowest pay would need to be paid more to survive and that would need to come out of the salary of those with higher pay.

So in essence I beleive it can go as tax or it can never be given in the first place but either way the economy will adjust itself over time to create a roughly similar wealth gap.


(cue "I know how the tax system works" reply)

Yeah, I know how the tax system works ;-)I didn't say it was unfair, although you could argue it's not fair because not everyone carries a proportionate burden.I said higher rate tax payers already pay a disproportionate amount of tax. In your example earning an extra £10 quid over the threshold it makes stuff all difference, but somebody earning £75k is paying a considerably higher proportion of their earnings, than the person earning £34,370, as more than half thier earnings are now being paid at 40%. Then for every additional penny they earn (bonuses, commission, car allowance, etc) they loose the best part of half of it before it hits the pay packet.The more you earn the more a disproportionate amount of tax you pay. Now that's how the system works and that's fine (we are all used to it already and live to our take home pay). It's the old 80/20 rule, only with tax in the UK its 10/59. The highest 10% of earners contribute 59% of tax revenues.Given that is already the situation though, and the highest earners are already bankrolling the rest of the country to a significant extent, I think it would be unfair to raise the higher tax rate, but not the lower tax rate. Everyone in the country should be resonsible for getting us out the **** together. If for instance you stick higher rate to 45%, then you should also stick lower rate to 25% IMO. It's an equal percentage rate increase, so it would have a proportionate impact on everyone.As for the new 50% tax rate, all that is going to do is drive the top 1% who pay 24% of taxes to live abroad, then where is that 24% deficit going to come from?

[Spank86]

Everyone in the country wasn't responsible for getting us in this **** in the first place though were they?

Plus for someone to be able to earn 75,000 they absolutely require hundreds of people NOT to be earning anything close to that. Their disproportionate salary and tax job could not exist, nor could their lifestyle without the toil of hundreds if not thousands of people who MUST work jobs paying far less(who themselves live off the third world but lets not go there shall we), If it were possible for everyone to do the jobs paying the money if their ability allowed then I'd agree with you, but it's not.

Even if everyone was a genius, we'd still need all those penny packet jobs doing and the only way to get that is to either subsidise them OR return to victorian squalor and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you why its a bad idea.

Subvsidising the poorer facets of society benefits the WHOLE of society and unless capitalism changes so that the relative wage gaps contract (which as it stands would simply increase pressure to push more jobs offshore and increase tax liability to pay for public servants anyway) it will always be necessary.

[-Ralph-]

Hundreds and thousands of people wouldnt have jobs unless somebody runs a company and employs them Spank.

Who is it that you think got us into our financial mess? Everyone earning £75k? LOL

What is it that makes it so impossible for somebody of a certain ability to reach thier potential? My best mate was on his **** in a bedsit in Mexico, when he started his business 15 years ago, he had nothing, its now valued about £20m USD. What is it he had that made it possible for him, but so impossible for somebody else?

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Runako]

Always intrigues me to hear views on wealth and taxation in the context of capitalism. The argument that a socialist society will not engender wealth creation and hinder growth. Interesting.

Anyway, tax and wealth is fair or unfair only depending on the ideals of the society in which you live. If society (i.e. the majority) deems it to be fair, then it is and vice versa. Theoretic arguments of socialism v capitalism will always be moot. Because it is the ideals and goals of a society which determines its outcomes (e.g. economic policy).

But what if the ideals are too disparate? Whether socialist or capitalist policy, it will not meet the needs of a society. For example, we embrace democracy because the majority of people want it. Then, within this ideal there are divergent social and capitalist policies.

So socialism could work if the greatest ideal of society is to reduce poverty. Or a capitalist ideal would thrive in a society that prioritises growth. The probelms occur when these ideals become too disparate. Wealth creation v Welfare; Sustainability v Investment (public spending); National health care v Reduced taxation.

As a society we pick or ideals. The rest is just the fine print.

[Bri w]

Plus for someone to be able to earn 75,000 they absolutely require hundreds of people NOT to be earning anything close to that. Their disproportionate salary and tax job could not exist, nor could their lifestyle without the toil of hundreds if not thousands of people who MUST work jobs paying far less(who themselves live off the third world but lets not go there shall we), If it were possible for everyone to do the jobs paying the money if their ability allowed then I'd agree with you, but it's not.

Even if everyone was a genius, we'd still need all those penny packet jobs doing and the only way to get that is to either subsidise them OR return to victorian squalor and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you why its a bad idea.

Subvsidising the poorer facets of society benefits the WHOLE of society and unless capitalism changes so that the relative wage gaps contract (which as it stands would simply increase pressure to push more jobs offshore and increase tax liability to pay for public servants anyway) it will always be necessary.

I'm not quite sure how someone earning £75k absolutely requires 100's and 1000's of people to earn less... and the logic is?

Disproportionate salaries?? Does an individual determine his own salary or does his boss and the market determine its value?

Take person A; he works his xxxx off at school, and then Uni. Then he gets a job that he grafts at. He does more courses, and learning and grafts some more and climbs up the job ladder. After 10yrs of hard graft, time away from home etc are you suggesting he hasn't earned a good wage? That maybe he should be paid the same as person B who lazed through school, shows no ambition or work ethic? And those who choose to do nothing other than claim their benefit should be paid something that allows them to be in the pub on a regular basis, paid for by the taxation of person A?

Maybe I missed something in your reasoning but, seriously, you're having a laugh aren't you?

[-Ralph-]

Lets not forget, that other than those who inherited what they have, or those for whom luck has dealt them a **** hand, at 16 when we did our exams and had the option choose our path in life the majority of us were in exactly the same place.

Most higher tax rate earners started on a minimum wage job and worked hard to get where they are. If they now provide jobs for others, or are employed at a higher salary rate in a capacity that results in the employment of others, then that is to be applauded IMO.

Most importantly of all, success in business is measured by how much money you make, sucess in life is not. I have a gorgeous happy little boy and a marriage which has lasted 11 years so far and we are still very much in the honeymoon period (and I hope we always will be). Thats my measure of success and there isnt a day goes past that I dont think about and thank my lucky stars for what Ive got, because life can turn tables on you at any time.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[The Basket]

Are we talking Hard line Marx or wishy washy Tony Blair pretend socialism?

Even under Stalin, you could still improve ones lot in life. Money isnt everything.

[Bibio]

i don't get this 'bitterness' of people who work against the ones who don't. i have always looked at work as a privilege and never regretted paying into the system. i also don't get why high earners should have to pay more in tax.

lets take a business who employs say 3 people but really need to employ 4 to expand but cant as the boss pays out the 4th wage in tax, its not their fault that they pay themselve a decent wage to have a decent life after all they were the one that took the risk in the first place. so said business can't expand so can't take someone unemployed off the list. now if the gov set the tax rate across the board at say 20% and then stopped tax/duty/vat returns it's quite possible that employers would then look at starting to expand their company.

another thing that gets my goat is the gov paying top-ups to working family's, this to me screams the cost of living is way higher than it should be. now look at the amount of working family's who claim WTC then look at the unemployed figures and i'll bet that the workers are claiming way more than the unemployed out the purse due to more people working than there are unemployed.

[metalmonkey]

I think the issue is that in the Western society, money is seen as being successful so more money, wealth and the amount of junk you buy is seen as the most important thing. How times have you heard of people being involved "retail therapy" does this make you feel better? Of course it doesn't. In fact I have come across someone very rich people who struck me as nasty people, who seemed to be unhappy...

Our economy is based on the population buying things, buy things its the dream be happy! I think as we have been hit the collapse of major corporations, people have started to realise that buying stuff, watching tv, "keeping up with the neighbours" ect just isn't worth espically as how hard you have to work to do so. Someone asked why phone was so beat up, it happens to be about 2-3 years old it still works so why change it?

It is possible that people are now seeing that you don't need "things" to be happy, once that happens it will actually work towards repairing the damage we have inflicted on our home.


Perhaps the only true way to be successful is be judged on what you leave behind.

[Bibio]

Our economy is based on the population buying things, buy things its the dream be happy! I think as we have been hit the collapse of major corporations, people have started to realise that buying stuff, watching tv, "keeping up with the neighbours" ect just isn't worth espically as how hard you have to work to do so. Someone asked why phone was so beat up, it happens to be about 2-3 years old it still works so why change it?


Perhaps the only true way to be successful is be judged on what you leave behind.

you have just gone up a notch in the list of people i like young man :smt040

[Bri w]

i don't get this 'bitterness' of people who work against the ones who don't. i have always looked at work as a privilege and never regretted paying into the system. i also don't get why high earners should have to pay more in tax.

lets take a business who employs say 3 people but really need to employ 4 to expand but cant as the boss pays out the 4th wage in tax, its not their fault that they pay themselve a decent wage to have a decent life after all they were the one that took the risk in the first place. so said business can't expand so can't take someone unemployed off the list. now if the gov set the tax rate across the board at say 20% and then stopped tax/duty/vat returns it's quite possible that employers would then look at starting to expand their company.

another thing that gets my goat is the gov paying top-ups to working family's, this to me screams the cost of living is way higher than it should be. now look at the amount of working family's who claim WTC then look at the unemployed figures and i'll bet that the workers are claiming way more than the unemployed out the purse due to more people working than there are unemployed.

I wouldn't lump all those that don't work into one pot Bib. A number of my relatives have never worked (officially), wrong side of the tracks, yet live very very comfortably. I know the fiddles but chose to have no part of them - the list is long and creative including having several Council houses in one family even though they were all under the same roof. Those are the non-workers I feel take a lend of those that work, and in the analogy in the OP are those that ride on the coat tails of those that work - "we" pay for it through our taxes, not the Govt.

As for tax; if someone came to me and said we are going to up tax by x% and all of that percentage will go into, say, the NHS I'd say do it. There's nothing wrong with our taxation system, only where those taxes are distributed.

People who genuinely can't work; why can't the state support them, and ideally, very comfortably. They have enough hassle in life without being victimised by those around them.

[Bibio]

in parts i agree but if these people really don't want to work then it's better to pay them not to rather than them stuffing someone's business up. you say they have a good lifestyle but how is their self esteem and attitude.

maybe i have a different slant on things as i have never had a problem getting a job and have only ever failed 1 interview to date and that was for a shelf stacker at sainsburys when i was at uni and to this day i know if i had lied on my CV i would have got the job (over qualified). i love working as i gives ones self purpose in life and to be honest i don't care what i do and will do each and every job to the best of my ability.

i have worked:
soft furnishings
chicken farm
blacksmith
delivery driver
kitchen fitter
handy man
domestic computer repair/networking

[andrewsmith]

you have just gone up a notch in the list of people i like young man :smt040

And mine!!

[punyXpress]

10/59.
If for instance you stick higher rate to 45%, then you should also stick lower rate to 25% IMO.

So the higher rate earner pays an extra 12.5% on his marginal earnings, but the poor s0d pays an extra 25% on his?

[-Ralph-]

So the higher rate earner pays an extra 12.5% on his marginal earnings, but the poor s0d pays an extra 25% on his?

Thought somebody might pick that up, but to be frank with you, your being pedantic over mathematics.

Over simplified mathematics on my part used to illustrate a concept, that being a proportionate tax increase for all if a tax increase is required, so the 10/59 ratio does not worsen for the higher rate taxpayer.

If I made the maths accurate it would have confused the message I was trying to convey. Even your 'corrected' calculation isnt correct.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Spank86]

Hundreds and thousands of people wouldnt have jobs unless somebody runs a company and employs them Spank.
Because before there were companies there were just hordes of people dying in ditches lacking the ability to work or even move without an overlord... It's a wonder we ever got out of caves. Companies are a lot newer invention than jobs.


But yes our current quality of life is dependent on there being companies and people with decent positions in them, that doesn't mean the current wage gap is necessary. It's a symbiotic relationship but one where one side calls all the shots without things like taxation to level the field.

And that's ignoring things like VAT which are regressive and penalise lower earners.


Who is it that you think got us into our financial mess? Everyone earning £75k? LOL[/QOUTE]
Of course not, I'm sure they were earning far more than that but it was pretty much nobody earning less than 30.

[QUOTE=-Ralph-;2793157]
What is it that makes it so impossible for somebody of a certain ability to reach thier potential? My best mate was on his **** in a bedsit in Mexico, when he started his business 15 years ago, he had nothing, its now valued about £20m USD. What is it he had that made it possible for him, but so impossible for somebody else?

Of course any one person can, but everyone cannot. It's not possible for everyone to have a good job even if everyone in the world was identical, had all the same abilities, drive and personality the bad jobs are necessary and the good jobs depend on them.

[Spank86]

.
Over simplified mathematics on my part used to illustrate a concept, that being a proportionate tax increase for all if a tax increase is required, so the 10/59 ratio does not worsen for the higher rate taxpayer.

Have you heard of diminishing marginal utility?


If the tax rise IS proportional then the money taken off the higher earners may cut into their child care fund, the money taken off the lower earners cuts into their child FOOD fund. (But seeing as we're in the UK probably not their fags and sky TV fund)


I'm not quite sure how someone earning £75k absolutely requires 100's and 1000's of people to earn less... and the logic is?


The logic is that it is completely impossible for a society where only the current £75k jobs exist to function, there absolutely has to be people to empty that guys bins, to grow and prepare his food, to stack shelves so he can buy his food, to make his machines.... The lowest paid jobs in society are completely necessary no matter what.

[-Ralph-]

Overlords and Cavemen, didn't see that one coming. Spank, your posts reassure me that there are still some unique individuals in the world.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Biker Biggles]

But Spank is essentially correct.Our economic system requires there to be poor people to service the rich people,so there is no point in vilifieing the underclass who as some long dead rich Victorian once said"will always be with us"
As for socialism,we need it,daft though much of it is,to counterbalance the opposite extreme of free market capitalism which is just as daft when allowed to reign unfettered.
And just to correct whoever stated that the NHS was not set up by socialists------Labour government 1945-1950 set up the NHS.And whatever their many faults and shortcomings,it has been Labour governments that have passed almost every bit of progressive social legislation since the war.The list is long,but includes the NHS ,the education system,the welfare system,the minimum wage,anti race/sex discrimination----------

[Spank86]

Overlords and Cavemen, didn't see that one coming. Spank, your posts reassure me that there are still some unique individuals in the world.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

That bit was slightly tongue in cheek.

[Bri w]

The logic is that it is completely impossible for a society where only the current £75k jobs exist to function, there absolutely has to be people to empty that guys bins, to grow and prepare his food, to stack shelves so he can buy his food, to make his machines.... The lowest paid jobs in society are completely necessary no matter what.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. I thought you meant someone had to do that job. In reality, as per the OP, there is a choice we can all make. Graft and get further up the ladder, or don't and to a large extent the choice is made for you, i.e. at the lower end of the wage scale.

[Spank86]

But there's not a choice we can ALL make, only some can make it, that's the point and they absolutely require others to not be able to inorder to gain their higher salaries.

These people may 'give' the lower paid their jobs but they also live off the lower paid.

Now that's all very well and it's how society functions but society stops functioning if the wage disparity gets too great and the only two balances against wage disparity are unionisation and government regulation/taxation.

Which is why we have a situation where taxation seems to be very disproportionate, it's easy to see that but not so easy to see that the reason is because wages are also disproportionate.

[yorkie_chris]

Even under Stalin, you could still improve ones lot in life. Money isnt everything.

But it had f*** all to do with merit and more to do with political reliability.

Hang on a minute am I on about working for the council under labour or working for the peoples #4 tractor factory in 1952? :smt082

[yorkie_chris]

And just to correct whoever stated that the NHS was not set up by socialists------Labour government 1945-1950 set up the NHS.And whatever their many faults and shortcomings,it has been Labour governments that have passed almost every bit of progressive social legislation since the war.The list is long,but includes the NHS ,the education system,the welfare system,the minimum wage,anti race/sex discrimination----------

Think Mr Lloyd George might have had something to say about that, state subsidised healthcare was started by the liberals in 1910 or something like that started the ball rolling.

[Biker Biggles]

Indeed the Liberals did start a rudimentary system,and rather more radical,a pension system back in the 1900s,but I did say "since the war".
Actually the Liberals were the socialists back then,before Labour existed,but whatever the party name we always need something on the left to counterbalance the other side.

[keith_d]

Recently I went to a country which has given socialism a bloody good try. This country has a completely free health service, free education, a government social program for the poor, and very little corruption. Unfortunately, this country also demonstrated why absolute socialism is no more workable than unfettered capitalism.

For an example, I'll use the dive resort I visited. It had a great location in a national park, surrounded by unspoilt reefs and pristine beaches. In any other country it would have been making money hand over fist. Unfortunately, the dive boat had broken down and nobody could be bothered to fix it, the food was worse than my work's canteen and the facilities looked tired and run down.

Why? Because it was in nobody's interest to try and improve things. The resort was owned by the government and they all kept their jobs and got paid whether things worked or not. So apathy ruled.

[metalmonkey]

Where was that Keith? (I was thinking Cuba)

[Spank86]

Why? Because it was in nobody's interest to try and improve things. The resort was owned by the government and they all kept their jobs and got paid whether things worked or not. So apathy ruled.

And example of a poor government control no more undermines socialism than an example of a poor company undermines capitalism.

Just as you can get malfunctioning capitalist economy's for long periods of time so can you socialist organisations. Properly set up however this wouldn't be the case.

[Winder]

Lots of different opinions, lots of different ideas and no real answers. This is how it will always be.
In the middle is where it works, extreme socialism or capitalism will tear itself apart. Banging around somewhere in the middle gives people something's to be happy about and something's to moan about. It just needs a tweak every now and then to keep the balance right and keep the masses from kicking off too much.

I don't think about it all that much as there's not a lot I can do about it. I vote for the liar that I think is telling the least lies as that's the only choice I have. The best of a bad bunch.

I found a job I'm starting to really like, I work hard and earn an average wage, I use the money for essentials like food/water/shelter/transport/fuel and the little I have left over I use to see the world and spend on my hobbies. That's should keep me happy until I snuff it.
I'll leave you lot to worry about problems that have no workable answer

[Spank86]

There's never been extreme socialism and there probably never will so we'll never know.

[Dipper]

And example of a poor government control no more undermines socialism than an example of a poor company undermines capitalism.

Just as you can get malfunctioning capitalist economy's for long periods of time so can you socialist organisations. Properly set up however this wouldn't be the case.

Is it possible to properly set up a socialist state? If there's no reward at any level what would there be to encourage achievement? would we consider making things "more equal" for those who put the effort in?

A poorly run business either goes broke or gets taken over...........

[Runako]

Is it possible to properly set up a socialist state? If there's no reward at any level what would there be to encourage achievement? would we consider making things "more equal" for those who put the effort in?

A poorly run business either goes broke or gets taken over...........

Socialism is just a construct. To think of it has having no impetus or seeking no reward is a misconception. The very point of socialism (in its theoretic sense) is to achieve a social aim. If society values such aims, then it decides its worth achieving.

For example, I watched a movie describing Stalin's socialist/communist propaganda as the first real successful mass marketing campaign! He was indeed "selling" the idea of socialism/communism to the people and the world. The film proposed that the practical similarities with many of today's marketing campaigns were remarkable.

And don't forget that the Germans and Russians at one point had the most advanced Rocket technology and their aim was world domination.

Capitalism just has a different set of aims. But, as is evident from what has already been said, this system is clearly also susceptible to failure and abuse which detracts from its inherent aims.

I'm convinced its the ideal and society's commitment to that ideal that matters most and this inevitably dictates that system we choose to attain those ideals.

[Spank86]

Is it possible to properly set up a socialist state? If there's no reward at any level what would there be to encourage achievement? would we consider making things "more equal" for those who put the effort in?

A poorly run business either goes broke or gets taken over...........

Yes, and that's not socialism,
In socialism there IS reward at every level (for decades until transition to a situation where it's no longer necessary).

Both socialism and communism have mechanisms to reward those who work hard and who do more important jobs, everyone IS equal but that doesn't mean everyone is identical.

[Dipper]

Socialism is just a construct. To think of it has having no impetus or seeking no reward is a misconception. The very point of socialism (in its theoretic sense) is to achieve a social aim. If society values such aims, then it decides its worth achieving.

For example, I watched a movie describing Stalin's socialist propaganda as the first real successful mass marketing campaign! He was indeed "selling" the idea of socialism to the people and the world. The film proposed that the practical similarities with many of today's marketing campaigns were remarkable.

And don't forget that the Germans and Russians at one point had the most advanced Rocket technology and their aim was world domination.

Capitalism just has a different set of aims. But, as is evident from what has already been said, this system is clearly also susceptible to failure and abuse which detracts from its inherent aims.

I'm convinced its the ideal and society's commitment to that ideal that matters most and this inevitably dictates that system we choose to attain those ideals.

Agreed, these socialist ideals are all pretty much non workable with the human species as it is, a well run socialist state may be able to run for a period under a very charismatic dictator, however it relies entirely on that dictator's moral fortitude, not something dictators are renowned for over long periods. Capitalism too will not work without regulation and social balance, I suppose that is what we would call democracy.

[metalmonkey]

Lots of different opinions, lots of different ideas and no real answers. This is how it will always be.
In the middle is where it works, extreme socialism or capitalism will tear itself apart. Banging around somewhere in the middle gives people something's to be happy about and something's to moan about. It just needs a tweak every now and then to keep the balance right and keep the masses from kicking off too much.

I don't think about it all that much as there's not a lot I can do about it. I vote for the liar that I think is telling the least lies as that's the only choice I have. The best of a bad bunch.

I found a job I'm starting to really like, I work hard and earn an average wage, I use the money for essentials like food/water/shelter/transport/fuel and the little I have left over I use to see the world and spend on my hobbies. That's should keep me happy until I snuff it.
I'll leave you lot to worry about problems that have no workable answer

The problem is what happens when the system goes pop as already talked about? Everything your talking about, may no longer exist. It may sounds nuts, but its just a matter of time.

[Dipper]

Yes, and that's not socialism,
In socialism there IS reward at every level (for decades until transition to a situation where it's no longer necessary).

Both socialism and communism have mechanisms to reward those who work hard and who do more important jobs, everyone IS equal but that doesn't mean everyone is identical.Interesting, I need to read more about this.
In this scenario do you believe transition could ever occur based on what we know about human behavior?

[Runako]

Interesting, I need to read more about this.
In this scenario do you believe transition could ever occur based on what we know about human behavior?

The question is "what are we transitioning from and what are we transitioning to?". Our greatest quality is adaptability. Our greatest weakness is ego.

Can our current society transition into socialism (in the true sense of the concept)? No, not right now. We are far too set in our ways. A seachange can take a lifetime.

But should we aspire to the pure ideals of socialism? Why not. If it means diminishing inequality for the better of society then this can only be a good thing - that is, if this is what society values.

Rather than pretend to know more than I do, have a look at this link as an insight into what I call "pure capitalism" - http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Pure+capitalist

[Spank86]

Interesting, I need to read more about this.
In this scenario do you believe transition could ever occur based on what we know about human behavior?

Yes I do.

We are of course talking generations.


Bear in mind all round the world millions of people do things for charity, help each other and work for no personal gain today, with little to no reward or encouragement, given a system where such behaviour was encouraged and promoted there's no reason why such behaviour couldn't become more prevalent.


Besides which reciprocal altruism is demonstrated in nature and all this system is is an extension of it.

[Spank86]

Agreed, these socialist ideals are all pretty much non workable with the human species as it is, a well run socialist state may be able to run for a period under a very charismatic dictator, however it relies entirely on that dictator's moral fortitude, not something dictators are renowned for over long periods. Capitalism too will not work without regulation and social balance, I suppose that is what we would call democracy.

If you've got a dictator, you've not got socialism, Russia's socialism/communism was a perversion of he original ideal, not unexpectedly, given the state it was transitioning from


Can our current society transition into socialism (in the true sense of the concept)? No, not right now. We are far too set in our ways. A seachange can take a lifetime.


More, much much more to reach the endgame.

[keith_d]

Where was that Keith? (I was thinking Cuba)

Yep, Cuba.

The government there has gone a long way down the socialist (as opposed to authoritarian communist) route but not found nirvana at the end.

So far as I can tell their laws are designed to prevent anyone becoming rich. Cubans are not allowed to own more than one house, 22 hectares of land, and one car. If you run a private B&B you aren't allowed to let more than two rooms and private restaurants are only allowed a certain number of tables. (I think it was 12). Anything larger has to be run as a government managed co-operative/collective.

I had a long talk to an engineering graduate over there. He was smart, motivated and well educated. In any other part of the world I would expect him to be running his own business. In Cuba he was working as a tour guide because it paid more than working for the government who have a virtual monopoly on engineering jobs.

Because of the 22 hectare limit, most of the agriculture I saw was small subsistence farms. I did see some larger plantations, but they were run by the government as 'collectives' rather than owned by individual farmers or companies. For the small subsistence farmer diversification and multiple small crops is the way to go, but it's not exactly efficient.

While we were driving around the western end of Cuba we took a wrong turn and ended up on the road to a large industrial building. So far as I could tell, it was gradually decaying due to lack of use. It appeared that nobody had any reason to take it over and build a functioning business there. I couldn't help seeing parallels to the failing dive resort I mentioned in my earlier post.

So far as I could tell the Cuban's weren't unhappy with their government. They were often too busy trying to get by. But from my outsider's perspective it would appear that their socialist vision resulted in under utilisation of people, land and capital. I don't believe that "devil take the hindmost" capitalism, as practised by their northern neighbour, America, is a great solution either. That also has some glaring defects such as their healthcare system.

My preference is for something in the middle. The incentives of capitalism tempered with a degree of social responsibility.

Just my thoughts,

Keith.

[yorkie_chris]

And don't forget that the Germans and Russians at one point had the most advanced Rocket technology and their aim was world domination.

And at a point not that long before that we had the most advanced steam technology in the world and this let us rule the world for a time. But it wasn't a government thing it was private individuals and businessmen that did this.

When did the Russians have the most advanced rocket technology? They captured German scientists after the war just like we and the US did.

[Runako]

And at a point not that long before that we had the most advanced steam technology in the world and this let us rule the world for a time. But it wasn't a government thing it was private individuals and businessmen that did this.

I disagree a little with this. Industrialisation allowed Great Britain to successfully exploit new technology but often this wasn't the facilitator to invention. In most cases, invention and innovation arises from necessity no matter what society you live in. As they say, where there's a will there's a way.

When did the Russians have the most advanced rocket technology? They captured German scientists after the war just like we and the US did.

Correct. (Although, not strictly correct but the point is the same).

[yorkie_chris]

I disagree a little with this. Industrialisation allowed Great Britain to successfully exploit new technology but often this wasn't the facilitator to invention. In most cases, invention and innovation arises from necessity no matter what society you live in. As they say, where there's a will there's a way.



Correct. (Although, not strictly correct but the point is the same).

The inventions facilitated the growth of industry.
Because men in sheds invented things, it changed the world. They were not ordered and funded by the state they did it of their own volition. Many of them became rich because of it and rightly so.

Not strictly correct... where am I wrong?

[Spank86]

The whole necessity thing is a bit overplayed IMHO, it's ver easy to look back and say an invention was necessary because of all the good it did but quite often invention creates it's own necessity and we ignore the thousands of occasions an invention would have been "necessary" but we wound up bumbling along without it anyway.


It's also worth noting that in the tech world a lot of innovation and invention is created by groups of people coming together for a common purpose, often splitting off from large corporations and forming a co-operative where they all share the success of their industry (via shares/profit sharing whatever)... Communism by any other name, even when it exists within the wider capitalist economy.

[Runako]

Not strictly correct... where am I wrong?

By some (in the science world) Tsiolkovsky (Russian) was considered the pioneer of the modern day rocket way back in 190? something.

The inventions facilitated the growth of industry. Because men in sheds invented things, it changed the world. They were not ordered and funded by the state they did it of their own volition. Many of them became rich because of it and rightly so.?

There's no argument that men in sheds invented things because they could or were simply curious. But it is also true that men in Government funded sheds also invented things. But this is besides the point. The original question was whether a citizen could be motivated to acheive such things in a socialist/communist society if there were no capitalist aims.

So my reasoning is yes they can be, and the examples given were to emphasise that. I'm not advocating the state as the facilitator of progress, just reflecting on what has happenned in the past in some societies as a reference.