blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 01:25:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Poll
Question: How will you vote on December 12th 2019
Conservative - 19 (33.9%)
Labour - 12 (21.4%)
SNP - 2 (3.6%)
Lib Dem - 8 (14.3%)
Brexit - 1 (1.8%)
Green - 6 (10.7%)
Other - 2 (3.6%)
Spoil - 0 (0%)
Not voting - 6 (10.7%)
Total Voters: 55

Pages: 1 ... 1495 1496 1497 1498 [1499] 1500 1501 1502 1503 ... 1533 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged  (Read 2180350 times)
teddybloat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 755


View Profile
« Reply #22470 on: December 10, 2019, 03:26:40 PM »

could you expand on this

how does capitalism conflict with environmental concerns?

the staus quo =  decades of progress provided by a [somewhat] free enterpirse system.

to improve the status quo we should be making markets freer, not trying to dismantle capitalism

Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22471 on: December 10, 2019, 03:27:19 PM »

this is exactly why corbyn is so dangerous.

imposition on private citizens, an erosion of property rights and a hatred of profit

you could not think of a more dangerous, less economically illiterate way of looking at running a modern economy

In my case it has little or nothing to do with Corbyn, I’d been reading political theory/history for at least a decade before I had any idea who Corbyn was.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22472 on: December 10, 2019, 03:29:47 PM »

could you expand on this

how does capitalism conflict with environmental concerns?

the staus quo =  decades of progress provided by a [somewhat] free enterpirse system.

to improve the status quo we should be making markets freer, not trying to dismantle capitalism



I don’t agree with him all the time by any means, he’s certainly layed in to the Environment Agency without justification a few times but I agree with what he says here.

https://www.monbiot.com/2019/04/30/the-problem-is-capitalism/
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #22473 on: December 10, 2019, 03:34:11 PM »

If the State owns all the rental property.

What do you do if someone doesn't pay their rent?
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
teddybloat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 755


View Profile
« Reply #22474 on: December 10, 2019, 03:48:53 PM »

could you expand on this

how does capitalism conflict with environmental concerns?

the staus quo =  decades of progress provided by a [somewhat] free enterpirse system.

to improve the status quo we should be making markets freer, not trying to dismantle capitalism



I don’t agree with him all the time by any means, he’s certainly layed in to the Environment Agency without justification a few times but I agree with what he says here.

https://www.monbiot.com/2019/04/30/the-problem-is-capitalism/


well his main objections are deeply flawed.

we don't need ever expanding resources when we can often make process more efficient and get more out of less. and people are not exploited by capitalism, he bizzarely mentions slavery

how i much better off are we now than even 20 years ago?

i earn barely above the national minimum wage -  i probably qualify for tax credits

yet i would not swap my standard of living with anyone in the top 5% of worldwide earners say 60 years ago

go back to pre capitalism and everyone in that world would instantly swap lives with me or you no matter how wealthy they are.

capitalism is what has made it possible for the poor of today to be richer than the wealthiest of 50 years ago.

you should cherish it, not look to destroy iy
Logged
vegaslover
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4618


View Profile
« Reply #22475 on: December 10, 2019, 03:55:36 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.

Not really sure of your agenda, but this is one of the most ridiculous posts in this thread.
Rental levels are set by supply and demand, simple as that. Think you confusing headline 'slum landlords with the majority of landlords, who have 1 or 2 properties.
I currently let out a property as a renovation I did 3 years ago couldn't sell after the govt killed the sales market that summer when they called the brexit vote. I make less that £200 a month, before any costs or maintenance. A fucking terrible return considering the significant money that was spent on the renovation.

Govt abandoned social housing as they didn't want to pay the cost, and most social housing were absolute shit holes when the govt gave up on them.

Saying people shouldn't make profit is akin to saying businesses shouldn't make profit, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Logged
mulhuzz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3022



View Profile
« Reply #22476 on: December 10, 2019, 04:01:26 PM »

a proper land value tax sorts out the issues of social housing more easily than banning private rent, and has the added bonus of redistributing income directly to the Exchequer.
Logged
neeko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1762


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22477 on: December 10, 2019, 05:26:08 PM »

Does this mean hotels are banned too?
Logged

There is no problem so bad that a politician cant make it worse.

http://www.dec.org.uk
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22478 on: December 10, 2019, 05:29:49 PM »

If the State owns all the rental property.

What do you do if someone doesn't pay their rent?

I had been thinking that you reclaim the money in a a similar way to how it is reclaimed now. There must be ways to compel people to meet their rent/debt obligations?
Logged
teddybloat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 755


View Profile
« Reply #22479 on: December 10, 2019, 05:35:33 PM »

yes, you evict them into housing run by government / councils
Logged
RickBFA
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001


View Profile
« Reply #22480 on: December 10, 2019, 05:46:24 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.

Not really sure of your agenda, but this is one of the most ridiculous posts in this thread.
Rental levels are set by supply and demand, simple as that. Think you confusing headline 'slum landlords with the majority of landlords, who have 1 or 2 properties.
I currently let out a property as a renovation I did 3 years ago couldn't sell after the govt killed the sales market that summer when they called the brexit vote. I make less that £200 a month, before any costs or maintenance. A fucking terrible return considering the significant money that was spent on the renovation.

Govt abandoned social housing as they didn't want to pay the cost, and most social housing were absolute shit holes when the govt gave up on them.

Saying people shouldn't make profit is akin to saying businesses shouldn't make profit, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

The idea is so extreme that even Corbyn isn’t stupid enough to use it.

By all means regulate the quality of accommodation, maybe even rents (although I don’t agree with that) but the whole concept is so far removed from reality it’s crazy.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22481 on: December 10, 2019, 05:48:57 PM »

yes, you evict them into housing run by government / councils

Why is the current system better on this?
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22482 on: December 10, 2019, 05:55:31 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.

Not really sure of your agenda, but this is one of the most ridiculous posts in this thread.
Rental levels are set by supply and demand, simple as that. Think you confusing headline 'slum landlords with the majority of landlords, who have 1 or 2 properties.
I currently let out a property as a renovation I did 3 years ago couldn't sell after the govt killed the sales market that summer when they called the brexit vote. I make less that £200 a month, before any costs or maintenance. A fucking terrible return considering the significant money that was spent on the renovation.

Govt abandoned social housing as they didn't want to pay the cost, and most social housing were absolute shit holes when the govt gave up on them.

Saying people shouldn't make profit is akin to saying businesses shouldn't make profit, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

The idea is so extreme that even Corbyn isn’t stupid enough to use it.

By all means regulate the quality of accommodation, maybe even rents (although I don’t agree with that) but the whole concept is so far removed from reality it’s crazy.

It was only introduced as a throwaway add on to Red Dogs wish list, stimulated a bit of debate. It’s a bit Marxist and probably more than anything helps us to see how far away from being Marxist a Labour government would be. The George Monbiot article probably merits more detailed discussion.
Logged
teddybloat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 755


View Profile
« Reply #22483 on: December 10, 2019, 06:51:54 PM »

It's argument against capitalism is based on two flawed ideas.

One that we will need ever growing resources ( we don't if we gain on efficiency)

And that it is based on exploitation of the poor (it doesn't it enriches the poor)
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #22484 on: December 10, 2019, 08:09:08 PM »

If the State owns all the rental property.

What do you do if someone doesn't pay their rent?

I had been thinking that you reclaim the money in a a similar way to how it is reclaimed now. There must be ways to compel people to meet their rent/debt obligations?

Before she retired my mum was a Revenue Protection Officer for a housing association, most of her job was making sure that everyone claimed all the benefits they were entitled to but she also had to deal with the people who just didn't bother paying rent.

It was very difficult to evict people and took multiple court visits and multiple broken agreements from them but eventually a judge would agree when people could get kicked out.

The cost of all of these events is going to eat up a lot of the affordable rent profit from the 'good' tenants; but without the ultimate sanction of eviction then I would suspect the problem would be a growing one under a single monolithic government rental giant scheme.

i.e. even if it starts out making a profit; it's going to get less and less over time and eventually will definitely be loss making.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Pages: 1 ... 1495 1496 1497 1498 [1499] 1500 1501 1502 1503 ... 1533 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 23 queries.