Beeny's back

[Andy Hall]

[The Natural Philosopher]

Precisely.

We tax work, but give money to those who can't/wont.

We tax savings, and give tax breaks to those who borrow.

We tax profits, but not waste.

In short the system generates and supports borrow and spend consumerism. The feelgood factor to get you elected.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes.

So go unfurnished.

Buy to let is always teraed as a 'company'

[The Natural Philosopher]

It exist as council tax. Yet another tax on ownership, and not on spending.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It exist as council tax. Yet another tax on ownership, and not on spending.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I am a millionaire, and I bought my first house when I was 43 years old.

Until I was 35, I was unable to actually save a penny whatsoever: It all went on staying alive in crappy rented accomodation and keeping scrapheap cars on the roads.

I never afforded to get married and have kids.

Despite being one of drivels 'privileged elite'

Kids of today have no bloody idea how tough it was, and it was a lot tougher for OUR parents.

and then can't

I never could, and I am 57. Without a nice union and a council house, no one could really.

Unless their parents had a little bit to lend them.

[Doctor Drivel]

Introduce Land value Tax. It doesn't tax work.

The British Empire went ahead of others because people could easily borrow to undertake overseas projects.

We should tax both

80% of all consumer debt is mortgages. If people did not have such high mortgages, which comes about because house prices are too high because land is not in the free market. Put land on the free market and relax planning and 1/2 of this debt will go away.

[Doctor Drivel]

It doesn't. With LVT there is NO income tax. You keep what you earn. A great incentive to work.

[The Natural Philosopher]

And its healthy that we are.

If a group of people want to get over a high wall, some of them have to stand on the shoulders of others to reach the top, and they are fools if they do not then reach down and pull the rest up - for next time.

I spent some years in the manufacturing industry: what was most curious and amusing was how at each level the people involved had this strong feeling that their position was in fact the most crucial, and without them the organisation would collapse.

I discovered the latter to be true, but not the former. A healthy society needs people at all levels dong all the jobs that need to be done. NONE of them is more important than any other. No one s indispensable, but sections of society are largely ALL indispensible.

Then you look at rewards: At a minimum you need a reward to enable someone to be able to do their job. They need to be fit and healthy but beyond that there is no fair reward. Making everybody earn the same and do the same work is rubbish: there is so much different work to do.

An academic pondering the mysteries of quantum physics? is that a valuable person? should they be given money enough to not have to concern themselves with mundane things? What about a politician? should he wash his own socks and clean his own coffee cups? Should he be forced to live in a council estate and beat drug dealers off his car before he goes to the house of Commons?

The answer is of course a resounding YES. People whose job is long range planning need to stand on other peoples shoulders a bit to see further, and they need a steady platform. The egalitarian society is de facto a dead and stupid and artificial one. If everybody lived the same life de jure., there would be no pioneers, no people with the time to investigate alternatives. And no examples to aspire to, or to shy away from.

I am sorry, I want my airline pilot to be sober, intelligent, well trained and from an elite that has a culture of professionalism and unselfishness, just like my doctor and my lawyer. And if it means he has to be rich to get it, so be it.

I want Posh and Becks to be ridiculously wealthy, and have the power to spend it on whatever they like, ye up to and including destroying thmselves with drink and drugs. It sets an example.

I want the royal family to show what life COULD be like if everyone WAS that rich and had not very much to do, yea even unto getting themselves wiped out in a high speed car chase trying to evade the very people they cultivated to make their personal marital vendettas much more public and embarrassing. If there is anything that makes me NOT want to be extremely rich and powerful, its GW Bush, The Kennedies, The Royal family, John Lennon, etc etc.

People need things to aspire to, or they lose motivation. Some people need freedom to explore, free from gross material wants. Others given that opportunity will be wastrels.

There are as many great scientists from the 'privileged' classes as there are great wastrels. If we can't afford to make everyone financially privileged, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make SOME people financially privileged.

I think the government should simply stay out of it. Whether by luck, by birth, by hard work - some people need to be super wealthy. Just so that they an use that to do whatever they want. And something different comes out of it.

I certainly do not believe in giving everyone who says they want it an affordable house. ESPECIALLY those who complain bitterly about the sons of the rich being given just that.

[John Rumm]

Ah bless... green or what. Do you suppose that should el gordo ever introduce something like this it would be as a *replacement* for an existing tax?

[Doctor Drivel]

So you made a mint inside a few years then!!! Lottery?

[Dave Gordon]

Put your head between them and go blubble blubble blubble

[Owain]

I expect Gordon would only replace an existing tax with a new tax if the new tax was both politically and economically more advantageous to the government.

Stand by for an "as lawyers and MPs often work from home, lawyers' and MPs' homes would be exempt" argument...

Owain

[Owain]

D'you mean like Arkwright and Nurse Gladys Emmanuelle?

Owain

[Andy Hall]

Oh please. I've just eaten dinner. I'd like to keep it.

[Lobster]

Makes no difference these days - furnished or unfurnished, it's still rare to find a tenancy more than a 6 months or 12 months in the first instance.

David

[Andy Hall]

It was Emmanuel which is something quite different.

[Andy Champ]

That's a "resounding yes" that the politician is valuable, not that he should live on a council estate I take it?

I have my doubts on some of the ivory tower stuff for politicians. People like me (and probably most of you) have seen their pensions hopes dropping due to demographic changes. The reaction of the government?

Take 5 billion a year tax from the pension system.

I don't suppose the fact that every last one of them gets a bullet proof inflation protected pension paid for by the rest of us exactly helped concentrate their minds on that little problem.

And as for forward planning - we have a so-called democratic system(1) that encourages short term planning. The only thing any sane politician can do is plan to get elected in 5 years or less. Do anything else, and he will have no power.

Andy

(1) It's an elective oligarchy, not a democracy. AFAIK there *are* no democracies. And WTF are we doing talking about this here anyway?

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, he should live on a council estate, and he isn't valuable. ;-)

[Stuart Noble]

person? should they be

What about a politician?

forced to live in a

house of Commons?

planning need to stand on

platform. The egalitarian

lived the same life de

alternatives. And no

should live on a council

like me (and probably

changes. The reaction of

inflation protected

that little problem.

encourages short term

in 5 years or less. Do

democracies. And WTF are we

the people. I wonder if

One man one vote would be a start