Is Gransnet leaning more to the left?

You're up early Meandrogrog (me too)!

The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist highlighted Capitalism in its most raw and unregulated state. I found it an 'illuminating' (I think that's the right word) and depressing read. Depressing because it captured the plight of workers on near-starvation wages complicit in their own hand-to-mouth existence without realising it.

I have often thought there must be a better way of living but cannot think how it could be achieved for us all.

You could look at the 'Nordic model'. Far from being the socialist economy that some - particularly Americans - think - it is a highly competitive Capitalist mixed-economy model, relying on free-market Capitalism, private property rights, and global trade. The reason for the mis-conception that, for example, Sweden, or Norway, are 'socialist' countries' is the fact that it combines its free-market system with a robust welfare state. And, at this point, the usual response is that workers pay much higher taxes. Which they do. But, what isn't mentioned is that Nordic wages are structurally higher across the board due to strong collective bargaining.

Taking into consideration that these high taxes directly cover things like universal healthcare, free university, and pretty heavily subsidised childcare, it shouldn't be too difficult to work out that here, in the UK - and in the States too - the benefit of our lower taxes is virtually wiped out for many who have to pay the privatised costs of childcare and higher education. In the US of course those low tax rates often don't mitigate the cost of health insurance. In other words, in the UK, lower taxes are immediately wiped out by privatised costs.

And I haven't even mentioned Norway's sovereign wealth fund...

It's not a perfect system of course - and it has its detractors - but, in terms of economic freedom per The Heritage Foundation, Norway (for example) ranks 8th out of 184 countries, so it's got something going for it.

... anyway, just something to consider when thinking about "a better way of living"

"When are you proposing that this taxation of private housing should take place, David?

How can the ‘wealth’ in a house be released for use while the owners are still alive? (yes, I know about annuities)

Are you suggesting that all properties should be subject to taxation on death?

What happens when house prices fall? It’s not inevitable that they constantly rise."

The cost of housing is governed by demand the high prices we seen now is because buyers CAN afford to buy them, new builds sell quickly often off plans. We stretch ourselves to get onto the housing ladder because we know we are going to make money, so buy the best we can afford.

Then when we get better wages we move to a nicer area or out into the country, we've pay a small amount of stamp duty no other tax on our gains, this is the same as a business who does pay tax on his gains.

You can realize your gains by downsizing, I moved from a 5 bed family house to a 3 bed bungalow, some take equity release,

I would increase stamp duty on higher value houses, in this area plots to build in desirable areas cost £400k, over £1m next to the golf course.

Others have suggested a 10% care levy on all estates, probably a threshold of £100k otherwise cost of admin would be too high on small estates.

When house prices fall there is no gain so no tax due, reducing house prices inflation is more important. Far too much emphasis on prices falling, if you have to move, your house may be worth less but so will the house you are buying.

The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist highlighted Capitalism in its most raw and unregulated state.

Unregulated is the key word here, isn't it? Because followers of the Hayek/Freidman (neoliberal) model want to achieve a state where capitalism is, once again, unregulated.

It is ironic that Hayek's highly influential book expounding his economic theories and which is the foundation of the ;neoliberal' economic ideology which is implemented almost universally since the 1980s, is called The Road to Serfdom. When you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist (and consider the social history of the 'Industrial Revolution' in the 19th and early 20th C you wonder just who the Serfs might be.

Hayek saw them as the victims of the state directed Communism (or the version of Communism implemented in Eastern Europe since the Russian Revolution) which, as an Eastern European he had escaped from. Yet in Trussell's book we can see that they were victims of unregulated Capitalism.

I have often thought there must be a better way of living but cannot think how it could be achieved for us all.

That sentiment does you honour, meandrogrog and I think that it what many of us feel. But your judgement of Labour sounds strongly like the neoliberal aim to free
Capitalism of all restraints when. in fact, the Labour party was set up to try and achieve a better life for workers within the capitalist system. This can only be achieved by placing restraints on Capital.

Note another key idea in Dicken's description of the Nordic economies:

Nordic wages are structurally higher across the board due to strong collective bargaining.

It is my belief that a 'better way of living' can only be achieved if the needs of all the populace are provided for, not just those of Capital. And Labour, however imperfectly (and some would argue very imperfectly) try to achieve that.

Adam Smith is widely considered to be the Father of free market economics, but he had this to say 300 years ago:

No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

Meandrogrog

MaizieD

In my view, those who can work, should work.

Why do you think that, Cossy when it is patently obvious that 'work' isn't something that the very wealthy really do?

Work, like taxes, seems to be only for the 'little people'. Especially galling when the 'little people' are mostly working to maintain their wealth and their lifestyles...

That was described in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist and is a very good point. The problem is that money is needed so nothing really changes. I have often thought there must be a better way of living but cannot think how it could be achieved for us all.

I'm still not sure that the average person can identify "those who can work". It reminds me of the time before the notices went up outside disabled toilets saying "Not all disabilities are visible". Perhaps we need to tell the ignorant that not all reasons for not working are visible either.

The other phrase that seems to me to lack any thought process is "I/We've worked all our lives" So have others. Some end up rich, some reasonably well off and some poor. Working, hard or otherwise, is far from being the only pointer to doing well and it says nothing about the moral status of that person.

I havnt watched ( or read) the whole piece but this was enough to make me wish I hadn’t 🤬
The premis is that we have gained nothing from private investment.

www.facebook.com/reel/1040648821619207

Thanks Petra and wow!

petra

I havnt watched ( or read) the whole piece but this was enough to make me wish I hadn’t 🤬
The premis is that we have gained nothing from private investment.

www.facebook.com/reel/1040648821619207

Interesting, petra.

hat is the 'whole piece' you refer to?

This appears to me to be a clip from a Select Committee hearing. Is there any indication of which one it was? The whole hearing should be available on line

I'm still not sure that the average person can identify "those who can work". It reminds me of the time before the notices went up outside disabled toilets saying "Not all disabilities are visible". Perhaps we need to tell the ignorant that not all reasons for not working are visible either.

I don't see why the average person needs to identify 'those who can work'. That is up to the system, surely? If someone is not working, they could explain to a trained person why not, and their reasons could be matched to what the state considers to be acceptable. It's not for individuals to police it.

The other phrase that seems to me to lack any thought process is "I/We've worked all our lives" So have others. Some end up rich, some reasonably well off and some poor. Working, hard or otherwise, is far from being the only pointer to doing well and it says nothing about the moral status of that person.

Not everyone 'works all their lives'. Some do, and some don't. There are different ways of measuring 'work', of course - lives vary, and what constitutes work varies over time and again, it is up to the system to decide, but in any case, people's contribution to the economy is what we are talking about here, not judging the 'moral status' you mention. As soon as there is any discussion of the way tax or welfare works, someone jumps to the conclusion that anyone pointing out unfairnesses in the system is making moral judgements about others. That is far from necessarily the case.

Having an opinion different from yours doesn't make people ignorant, or incapable of applying thought, either. They do come across as moral judgements.

Gosh, this Thread has become so much more interesting.

Generally the debate on here is civilised and arguments never turn nasty. I do recall being on another forum at the height of the Jeremy Corbyn era and his supporters being the most intolerant and aggressive I've ever encountered. Anyone who disagreed with them was either a Tory or a fascist, criticism of Corbyn was always shouted down, and they never listened to anyone else's opinions. I was glad when he lost in 2019, arounf the time I left this forum.

"No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged"

Society is much fairer than in Adam Smiths time when poverty meant no food no shelter, we do provide the basics for most in need. We don't have a free market economy it is regulated, it's just not regulated well enough, currently we are being exploited by the tech companies, with the advent of AI this looks to get worse.

There is a wide income gap, there will always be the entrepreneurs who expand and get rich are we to tax them out of business or do we value the jobs they provide and tax they pay. Because the UK has been very poor at exploiting technology, many companies are foreign owned and we have very little control over them.

Reading our local paper the County Council were complaint of the cost increase for Microsoft licensing, they are paying £3m a year. They are looking for an alternative - is there one when hundreds log into the same system ?

If you’re referring to “me” and my who should and who can work comment?

I worked within the DWP for 14 years, for most of this time I worked directly with unemployed benefit claimants and it was my job role to help determine, with the info from both the claimant, and my own skills/experience, who should be advised to make a claim to the “sickness” part of Universal Credit (prior to that various “sickness” benefits), who needed “reasonable adjustments” and who should be seeking full time work.

In the current set-up on our own country, anyone can choose not to work, and that’s great, but the second that person chooses not to work and chooses to claim benefits instead it becomes a situation where those working within the welfare system need to question those in this category. DWP staff, like all Civil Servants, are reminded that part of our role is being aware of the “public purse” and to assure those funding this are getting value for money.

MaizieD

petra

I havnt watched ( or read) the whole piece but this was enough to make me wish I hadn’t 🤬
The premis is that we have gained nothing from private investment.

www.facebook.com/reel/1040648821619207

Interesting, petra.

hat is the 'whole piece' you refer to?

This appears to me to be a clip from a Select Committee hearing. Is there any indication of which one it was? The whole hearing should be available on line

Here’s the whole piece.
The £ figures are beyond criminal. 🤬

youtu.be/br5F8KzjFkY?is=0-ha30HIEimY8-SK

Thanks, petra

Society is much fairer than in Adam Smiths time when poverty meant no food no shelter, we do provide the basics for most in need

With 14 million UK citizens living below the poverty line I don't think we've progressed very far in 300 years.

We don't have a free market economy it is regulated, it's just not regulated well enough,

That is not what those who call for deregulation think! That is the tories and Reform and all the businesses busy lobbying the Labour party for less regulation and taxation.

MaizieD

It is ironic that Hayek's highly influential book expounding his economic theories and which is the foundation of the ;neoliberal' economic ideology which is implemented almost universally since the 1980s, is called The Road to Serfdom. When you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist (and consider the social history of the 'Industrial Revolution' in the 19th and early 20th C you wonder just who the Serfs might be.

After years of Austerity, I think many "hard-working-families" could legitimately claim the book's title for themselves.

There is so much to say about Hayekian principles which still, via Thatcher, dominate Conservative ideology today, a Conservative party - under the leadership of whoever - that has totally abandoned the post-war consensus, and which continually tries to re-invent itself with mantras ranging from (I remember thinking this one sounded a bit naff) "The Best Future for Britain" (John Major) right through to the cringeworthy - and patently untrue - "We're All In This Together" - everyone knows who coined that one. And who can forget the "Growth, Growth and Growth" from a premiership that didn't last as long as a wilting lettuce...

And yet, here we are, with a Labour government, who are going to have a heck of a job convincing many of those who are regarded under Hayek's academic theories as commodities, the same as a piece of equipment, that a workforce functions more efficiently when its health, welfare and wellbeing is catered for. Which might mean it has to have a tad more of the pie it helped to make, as well.

Sago

Umm. You did!!

(See your penultimate paragraph)

.

In the light of very recent discussion I wonder if some of you might find this TED talk interesting.

Given by Nick Hanauer. Described here on the TED site:

Nick Hanauer has founded, cofounded or funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries. Among his many successes is aQuantive, which sold to Microsoft for $6.4 billion. He was the first non-family investor in Amazon.

Nick gives a simple description of neoliberalism, points to its deep flaws and suggests a different approach.

www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_the_dirty_secret_of_capitalism_and_a_new_way_forward

This talk dates from 2019.

He did an earlier talk in 2014 called 'Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming'

The pitchforks may not be coming very fast, but I think recent cost of living protests in Europe and the move towards the far right populists who promise simplistic solutions to the problems of the disadvantaged, are signs that they're getting closer..

MaizieD

In the light of very recent discussion I wonder if some of you might find this TED talk interesting.

Given by Nick Hanauer. Described here on the TED site:

Nick Hanauer has founded, cofounded or funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries. Among his many successes is aQuantive, which sold to Microsoft for $6.4 billion. He was the first non-family investor in Amazon.

Nick gives a simple description of neoliberalism, points to its deep flaws and suggests a different approach.

www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_the_dirty_secret_of_capitalism_and_a_new_way_forward

This talk dates from 2019.

He did an earlier talk in 2014 called 'Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming'

The pitchforks may not be coming very fast, but I think recent cost of living protests in Europe and the move towards the far right populists who promise simplistic solutions to the problems of the disadvantaged, are signs that they're getting closer..

I love the man. I’ve got several talks saved. 🥰
His talkers should be shown in schools.

Another great piece from the House of Lords

www.facebook.com/reel/1520013969664506

Dickens

You're up early Meandrogrog (me too)!

The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist highlighted Capitalism in its most raw and unregulated state. I found it an 'illuminating' (I think that's the right word) and depressing read. Depressing because it captured the plight of workers on near-starvation wages complicit in their own hand-to-mouth existence without realising it.

I have often thought there must be a better way of living but cannot think how it could be achieved for us all.

You could look at the 'Nordic model'. Far from being the socialist economy that some - particularly Americans - think - it is a highly competitive Capitalist mixed-economy model, relying on free-market Capitalism, private property rights, and global trade. The reason for the mis-conception that, for example, Sweden, or Norway, are 'socialist' countries' is the fact that it combines its free-market system with a robust welfare state. And, at this point, the usual response is that workers pay much higher taxes. Which they do. But, what isn't mentioned is that Nordic wages are structurally higher across the board due to strong collective bargaining.

Taking into consideration that these high taxes directly cover things like universal healthcare, free university, and pretty heavily subsidised childcare, it shouldn't be too difficult to work out that here, in the UK - and in the States too - the benefit of our lower taxes is virtually wiped out for many who have to pay the privatised costs of childcare and higher education. In the US of course those low tax rates often don't mitigate the cost of health insurance. In other words, in the UK, lower taxes are immediately wiped out by privatised costs.

And I haven't even mentioned Norway's sovereign wealth fund...

It's not a perfect system of course - and it has its detractors - but, in terms of economic freedom per The Heritage Foundation, Norway (for example) ranks 8th out of 184 countries, so it's got something going for it.

... anyway, just something to consider when thinking about "a better way of living"

Yes it was a depressing read for the reasons you have mentioned. The issue was that the workers had no other option than to be complicit. To offend bosses was to starve in those days!

I do agree about the Nordic model, Finland is listed as the happiest country in the world. I assume its because although highly taxed the salaries must be good to afford the taxes and also .i assume they must be looked after well, good healthcare, childcare and quality of life. Would be interesting to hear from anyone on gransnet who has experience of this.

Could we be like the Nordic model as we have such a big population?