An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

bobbymotors

So where would you say is the shining example of capitalism benefiting the majority of the population in a fair and just way?

There is no perfect system, but largely it works:

here
USA
Canada
Germany
France
Austria
Spain
Australia
New Zealand
Japan
and so on..

No doubt you can google and find examples of how capitalism doesn't really work in these countries...but if you look at the standard of living compared to a generation ago, it patently does.

Why does it have to be exactly fair and just? Life isn't like that, ever: It can only ever be as fair and just as possible.

For the record, I don't believe in exploiting any workforce, and truly believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work, everytime: but having some one who has no risk or money invested telling me how to run my business? Never in a lifetime: at least if I risk it and lose it was me that lost it.

But always, on either end, there will be extremes such as Bangladeshi children making trainers for £2 a day...and underground train drivers on £60 grand a year for a 35 hour week and who strike in the interests of 'safety' when its nothing to do with it.

But even the bangladeshi children earning £2 a day or whatever are better off than some of their counterparts that are forced to sift through rubbish to find plastic bottles to sell. It's all relative. Should they be paid more? Absolutely yes, their bosses are taking the pi$$, big time...should underground drivers be paid less? Absolutely yes. they are taking the pi$$, big time.

There is no perfect system, but capitalism is the best one so far....socialism doesn't work, never has, never will.

Anyone though has the right to believe in socialism should they so wish. It is an inalienable right to do so. Their problem is that they cannot see its faults, and berate those who can, whereas capitalists usually can see the faults, and either fix them or go bankrupt.

westernpromise

In other news, 55% of Corbyn supporters think that intelligence services like MI5 have been working to undermine Corbyn.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-09-02/Conspiracy-theories.gif

RTWT, it's a scream:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/8-more-things-weve-learned-our-labour-leadership-e/

BobQ

bobbymotors wrote: »

So where would you say is the shining example of capitalism benefiting the majority of the population in a fair and just way?

There is no perfect system, but largely it works:..........

.

I accept that in such places it generally works but as you say no system is perfect.

Why does it have to be exactly fair and just? Life isn't like that, ever: It can only ever be as fair and just as possible.

It does not have to be fair and just and it could be unfair and unjust. Such extremes can all embrace capitalism.

For the record, I don't believe in exploiting any workforce, and truly believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work, everytime: but having some one who has no risk or money invested telling me how to run my business? Never in a lifetime: at least if I risk it and lose it was me that lost it.

I have never thought much about workers on a board and I can see your point of view in a firm owned by a few individuals. Of course people who have worked many years for a company might argue that they have invested part of their life in your firm and helped the firm make a lot of money, may have their pensions invested in the company or their pension fund owns companies like that, and risk losing their jobs if that board makes bad decisions.

But my point was really that very few people beieve in ideological sociaism. If they advocate socialism most think it is about making a market economy work in a fair and just way.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

.If they advocate socialism most think it is about making a market economy work in a fair and just way.

The problem is too many confuse "Fair" with "everyone all having the same". But in reality, a system whereby someone who works like a dog all their life reaps the benefits & someone who chooses (lets be honest lots do) to do nothing has sod all would be very fair.

And a system that looks to take as an ever-increasing amount to the former & give it to the latter, is extremely unfair.

But there are plenty like Rugged who'd vote for such a system. And then justify it various ways such as citing the various groups who actually should be helped. But the reality is the hard-working will always pay for everyone else & the Corbyn brigade, rather than thank them, will hate them just the same.

westernpromise

Fella wrote: »

But the reality is the hard-working will always pay for everyone else & the Corbyn brigade, rather than thank them, will hate them just the same.

This.

Hence I have a further question for Toastie. Let's use some hypothetical numbers. Suppose I make £300,000 a year from work and another £30,000 from a BTL.

How much of that does Toastie feel should be confiscated by the state?

45%? 50%? 83%?

BobQ

westernpromise wrote: »

This.

Hence I have a further question for Toastie. Let's use some hypothetical numbers. Suppose I make £300,000 a year from work and another £30,000 from a BTL.

How much of that does Toastie feel should be confiscated by the state?

45%? 50%? 83%?

Confiscated by the state is a very perjorative term. It is not about you it is about what is a fair amount of tax. You may feel it is the same.

I would say you should keep all £330,000 provded you live on an island you own outside of the UK territorial waters and do not expect any services that you do not contribute towards.

How much do you think should be confiscated?

Thrugelmir

westernpromise wrote: »

Suppose I make £300,000 a year from work

A more fundamental question is what makes you worth that much. There's a line of thinking that the top dog should earn a maximum of 20 times the lowest paid full time employee in the organisation. Fairness and an equitable share have vanished from our culture under a wave of American globalisation. The tide though appears to be turning.

LHW99

This may have begun well before globalisation fully took off. I can't help feeling there was some union input back in the 60s or 70s whereby "maintaining the differentials" became extremely important.

Unfortunately that generally meant that the lowest paid became even more poorly paid relative to the higher grades, as everything was based on percentages, so in pound terms, a 5% rise was worth a lot more pounds to the foreman or middle manager than it was to the girl on the till.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A more fundamental question is what makes you worth that much. There's a line of thinking that the top dog should earn a maximum of 20 times the lowest paid full time employee in the organisation..

Please explain why, on the basis of "worth", the ratio should be 20, rather than 2 or 200.

westernpromise

BobQ wrote: »

Confiscated by the state is a very perjorative term. It is not about you it is about what is a fair amount of tax. You may feel it is the same.

I would say you should keep all £330,000 provded you live on an island you own outside of the UK territorial waters and do not expect any services that you do not contribute towards.

How much do you think should be confiscated?

In that situation, as little as possible.

What I want to know is what does Toastie think should be confiscated?