It really doesn't matter what the polls say at this time ,what matters is on the day.The polls include a mere fraction of the actual voting public and normally not in all areas of the country. In my opinion,if labour do get back,it would prove to me that you can you can fool most of the people most of the time.
Economy on the up. Tories will win. Only question is whether they can do it alone or will it be another condem
interesting topic i ve tried to find an answer to for a looooong time... The only thing we know for sure is that societies and all citizens (poor and rich) thrive through the distribution of wealth. Thus through taxation. Redistributing wealth is a main key to avoid conflict and violence. Maximal redistribution of wealth is a socialist Capitalism does not seek redistribution. Capitalism prefers concentration of wealth. It ‘s goal is to dominate through relentless demolition of competition. The optimal tax rate for capitalism is 0. Capitalism is more of a feodal system than anything else. There is not much difference between Europe in the middle-ages and countries where a handful control/own most of the land and resources. When conglomerates reach a certain size that they outpower local government, they will stop at nothing to advance their goal and the law will be beneath them. And therefore act more like criminal organisations than companies. Given the opportunity they will pollute and poison. They will corrupt and suppress. To see capitalism in its purest form: look what happened to the financial system. The example of the effect of deregulation ad free-market for the next 100 ears. And how a microscopic small number took it all in Russia after 1989. In a way that the mafia is not capable to do here. In fact : Our markets are very very regulated and far from free. We can easily make a case that in fact , real communism has never been tried as it has always led to systems that are in fact facist. What is happening in China is the most interesting development since Marx wrote his book. There the communist state is now applying capitalism in its purest form. And will evolve into something completely new. Perhaps even leading to wealth without democracy. So truly, how we live in Europe is in fact socialist. Even when we’re ‘conservative’, we still are socialist. Because in fact ? what does change when we go from LEFT to RIGHT. A slight shift in putting the emphasis on the individual or the collective. Does the right suddenly cut social spending? Does the left confiscate all property? So the question is: when does taxation go from adding to society to hindering society? And this is the tightrope that has to be walked. What we can blame the left for is not that they still prioritise taking care of the weak. But the blindness they keep for the fact that society has developed far from the days of when it was initiated. That the middle class is by now much more important the big corporate business. That ownership of those corporates is now distributed via pensionfunds and insurance-companies. And that they seem to fight an enemy that no longer exists. And that in this battle, the oversee that before it’s redistribution , wealth has to be created. And that each individual , how limited they may be in talent and possibility, has a capacity and therefore duty to contribute. And what most of the eurpean societies seem to share for the moment is a belief that that duty to contribute has been denied or forgotten. That it is all about rights and less and less about duty. And that those who do contribute by working and/or entrepreneuring on whatevever small or large a scale feel disillusioned. And rifts are growing within. So socialism – yes by definition – the richer my customers, the better off I’ll be. But with renewed emphasis on the individual over the collective and on duty. There are enough rigths. I think…. J On many points I am socialist. But in the end I’m not . As it does not cater for the aspect that man is not meant to be equal. And that before the other, he will take care of himself. The negation of individuality.
is there any point in redistributing the wealth, what are we going to do with all this extra cash? buy stuff and screw the planet even quicker, more famine, more flood more war. :smile:
the most redistribution of wealth lies in how we function. infrastructure, Healthcare and education... the challenge ahead is to make as much as possible contribute. for we will need it to keep those who need included. and now there is a feeling that to many are shying away from that duty to contribute... that too few of those who could, don't.. famine and war rage where there is no redistribution of wealth. Looking at Africa: the leap from tribal instincts to modern times is difficult. but it is mostly hindered by corruption installed by big business. Big business that one day ( 19th century) was political elite.. the the aristocray that came from feodal systems.
What matters most? How much takes or how you see it managed and spent ? Perception of what you get back .. This is where the pressure comes from: too many escaping contributing and bad management ..
There is a strong moral argument that everyone who can contributes something, the downside is that the inefficiencies of collecting small amounts of tax makes it financially not worth while.
It's official, taxes are to punish the rich, not to raise revenue Labour supporters admit it: taxes are to punish the rich, not to raise revenue – Telegraph Blogs Fairness is really envy
There is nothing very surprising here, both in what is said and the way it is presented. In Frank's Luxury Fever he cites an experiment where psychology students were given the option of living in one of two hypothetical societies. In society A, they would earn $80 a week whereas all other inhabitants of the society would earn $70. In society B, they would earn $100 a week whereas all other inhabitants would earn $120. Spending power would be the same in both societies, so that in society B, they would be richer in real terms than if they lived in society A (have more and better stuff) but less rich than their peers. Unsurprisingly, the students preferred to live in society A. They weren't bothered that they were less well off, the important thing is that they were relatively better off compared to everyone else. The important thing for humans is to be top of the tree, it doesn't much matter if the tree is very small, or a Californian Redwood. This is how human nature works, just how we are. When you are pondering obscene bankers' bonuses, you have to understand the corporate culture. On bonus day, you get a £1m bonus. How do you feel? Overjoyed? Probably, until you realise that the colleagues you work closely with each got £2m. Now how do you feel? That is precisely how it works in banks. The bankers are in a little bubble where their salaries are judged against other banker's salaries and that is why they are never satisfied. For all the whinging about poverty on this forum, do you judge your salary against the man in the street in Calcutta? Of course not. So it is quite normal for the have-lesses in society to want to see the differential between them and the have-mores reduced, because ultimately in society, it is the differential that counts, not the absolute value of wealth. People have far more than they did 50 years ago, but how much happier are they? It is quite obvious that this site is a microcosm of society. We are all fortunate to own Ducatis - a great vehicle. But we can't help looking with a pang of envy at those who own D16's, or Superleggeras, or those who do streams of foreign track weekends. Of course we aren't jealous of those members, but we are a tiny bit envious. Only normal.
Glid , that is one fine case very well brought . To what you point is THE reason why any ideology that has "the people" at the centre will always stumble if it does not allow for this human trait to be fulfilled .. As not doing so will either stiffle initiativ or foster cortuption and abuse . And man is not a nice beast enough to allow for that to happen .. It still puzzles me how little it takes to decent into barbarism overnight ... It s as though man cannot live without war ...
I am a little surprised at the way you are really struggling with this elementary point, johnv. Let us take this in even easier stages. 1. The figures shown by recently published public opinion polls are a matter of public record. They show a Labour lead of roughly 5%-7%, as they have done for many months. We need not discuss their accuracy or otherwise for now - simply note the facts. 2. Douglas Carswell started his piece (to which you linked) as follows: "The polls have narrowed. Labour's lead has evaporated to between 1 and 2 per cent." 3. I mentioned that Carswell's statement is simply not the case. It is untrue; it does not correspond to the facts; the polls have not narrowed; Labour's lead has not evaporated. It may do so next week, for all I know, but it has not done so yet. 4. I had hoped to be able to move on rapidly to debating the rest of Carswell's barking mad nonsense. Unfortunately it seems you are not in the mood. OK, that's your choice. Pity though.
So is that a long winded way of saying that the Grauniad is wrong ? I wonder why they would do that ?
I agree but add NI and VAT on most purchases,showroom tax,stamp duty,fuel duty etc,etc,its more like 80% and then with what's left after this rape of yer income there is inheritance tax after the threshold of a very reasonable 40% which you can't argue with coz you're dead.So you will need an expensive lawyer and accountant to sort this out with further bleeding tax paid on their services.Labour say "so that those who have pay their fair share to the national debt"Oh please Mr Balls and Milliband,do you think that we are that stupid?
Vote next week on immigration in Switzerland. I have weighed up everything and made up my mind. The question to be voted on is: Do we want Switzerland to once again be in charge of its immigration policy, i.e. fix quotas for immigrants in defiance of Brussels? In other words, if the popular initiative is past, Switzerland will have to renegotiate the free movement of European nationals with the EU. Should be a close vote and hard to call. I expect the status quo will prevail, but forecasts on present immigration are for 10m inhabitants of this land in 2025 as opposed to the current 8m. God knows were the extra will go - they are hardly likely to start building on the Jungfrau. The extra 2m will all be immigrants as the Swiss-born population is stable. Currently 25% of the country are immigrants - myself included (even though I now have the magic Swiss passport). So that means 40% immigrants in 2025.
Don t see mich afghans and somali getting into switserland .. Bit like luxemburg .. Most immigrants are bankers
I wish that were so. Here's how you do it, a tried and tested method: Fly in from some god-forsaken place. Rip up your passport on the plane and flush it down the bog. When you arrive at immigration demand political asylum and say you come from, indeed, Somalia or some other dodgy, potentially war torn country. Doesn't matter if you come from anywhere else in Africa. No one will know and none of the countries keep any records worth talking about. Invent a name and a story and you'll soon be on the streets selling cocaine. The moment you say you come from somewhere like Somalia or Sierra Leone, you can't be sent back anywhere. Sounds racist? Come and have a look. Don't forget that Switzerland is a land of asylum. Always has been. In the way they invented the Red Cross, the Swiss think they are the world's St-Bernards.
