|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 28, 2022 14:46:29 GMT
What’s that you were saying Pol?
Rail firm paid shareholders £500m before asking workers to take wage cut
CEOs of the six biggest train companies also took home a combined salary of more than £5m in 2020Private sector companies have responsibilities to generate profits for their shareholders. They also have responsibilities to the people who work for them, and the challenge is to balance those priorities to create the best possible outcomes. An argument can certainly be made that rail should be fully renationalised in order to take profit out of the equation. The problem is that I don't recall British Rail being any better than what followed after privatisation. (Strictly speaking, I'd say that some things subsequently got better and others got worse.) They aren't "generating" anything. Since they discovered during Covid that they didn't like the downs that come with running a private business, only the ups, they have been paid a nice little earner by the government to effectively do very little which is as usual, nationalising losses whilst privatising profits. The biggest argument for taking it all back in house is that you can stop the fragmentation which has been disastrous and has created non stop problems between different franchise holders. The Conservatives are against that purely for ideological reasons, they are quite happy for the railways to be state owned as long as it's the German state taking the profits. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 28, 2022 14:52:00 GMT
^ Spot on
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 28, 2022 15:08:58 GMT
The biggest argument for taking it all back in house is that you can stop the fragmentation which has been disastrous and has created non stop problems between different franchise holders. The way privatisation done was actually quite perverse. The railways had a perfectly serviceable business model prior to nationalisation, but the then-government opted for a completely different structure on privatisation. Whilst I can understand the logic behind it – the intention was to avoid privatised monopolies – it has led to lots of logistical problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 28, 2022 15:17:13 GMT
It's surely indisputable now that the Neo-Liberal dogma that informed the "free market" decision-making is at best inappropriate in many contexts and, I'd suggest, wrong in the vast majority.
There has to be some state intervention and involvement, and of course as soon as anything goes wrong the State have to step in and clean up the mess
Call me crazy but I'd rather know a Doctor was qualified and competent than leave it to the market to weed out the charlatans
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 28, 2022 16:04:19 GMT
It's surely indisputable now that the Neo-Liberal dogma that informed the "free market" decision-making is at best inappropriate in many contexts and, I'd suggest, wrong in the vast majority. There has to be some state intervention and involvement, and of course as soon as anything goes wrong the State have to step in and clean up the mess No, it's not indisputable at all, given that hardline socialism – as opposed to social democracy – has ultimately failed everywhere it has been attempted, producing widespread poverty and frequently leading to authoritarian regimes. However, state intervention is indeed appropriate in some circumstances, which is why Britain maintains a mixed economy rather than pursuing a purely capitalist American model. |
|
|
|
Strikes
Jun 28, 2022 17:42:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 28, 2022 17:42:17 GMT
I’m not suggesting it’s an either/or but, for example, The 2008 financial crash demonstrated just how badly unregulated markets can go wrong
Most sectors need regulation, and the societies with the highest levels of happiness and social mobility are those more managed economies with higher rates of taxation
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 28, 2022 17:55:36 GMT
I’m not suggesting it’s an either/or but, for example, The 2008 financial crash demonstrated just how badly unregulated markets can go wrong Most sectors need regulation, and the societies with the highest levels of happiness and social mobility are those more managed economies with higher rates of taxation Agreed on the need for regulation of markets. I do not agree with high taxes, which to my mind stifle entrepreneurship and can quickly become ideological and punitive. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 29, 2022 15:49:25 GMT
It's surely indisputable now that the Neo-Liberal dogma that informed the "free market" decision-making is at best inappropriate in many contexts and, I'd suggest, wrong in the vast majority. There has to be some state intervention and involvement, and of course as soon as anything goes wrong the State have to step in and clean up the mess No, it's not indisputable at all, given that hardline socialism – as opposed to social democracy – has ultimately failed everywhere it has been attempted, producing widespread poverty and frequently leading to authoritarian regimes. However, state intervention is indeed appropriate in some circumstances, which is why Britain maintains a mixed economy rather than pursuing a purely capitalist American model. Why is the alternative to "neo liberal dogma" necessarily "hardline socialism". That's just standard Tory "lets scare the voters" nonsense. What is crystal clear is that certain de-Nationalisations were done for purely ideological reasons and are far better handled in the public sector. The railways is a no brainer, nearly everyone accepts Privatisation has been an utter catastrophe, even some Conservatives. Certainly some Utilities would be better handled in public ownership, and as the ideological Brexit (without the customs union) has been imposed, then the "free market" will likely kill off a lot of self sufficiency in important sectors, as is being shown by the sudden Tory appetite for steel tariffs. In fact, once Union "closed shops" went, a lot of the arguments for privatisation, disappeared it could be argued. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 29, 2022 16:05:32 GMT
I’m not suggesting it’s an either/or but, for example, The 2008 financial crash demonstrated just how badly unregulated markets can go wrong Most sectors need regulation, and the societies with the highest levels of happiness and social mobility are those more managed economies with higher rates of taxation Agreed on the need for regulation of markets. I do not agree with high taxes, which to my mind stifle entrepreneurship and can quickly become ideological and punitive. Not high. Higher. And fairer. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 29, 2022 20:21:58 GMT
Why is the alternative to "neo liberal dogma" necessarily "hardline socialism". That's just standard Tory "lets scare the voters" nonsense. What is crystal clear is that certain de-Nationalisations were done for purely ideological reasons and are far better handled in the public sector. The railways is a no brainer, nearly everyone accepts Privatisation has been an utter catastrophe, even some Conservatives. Certainly some Utilities would be better handled in public ownership, and as the ideological Brexit (without the customs union) has been imposed, then the "free market" will likely kill off a lot of self sufficiency in important sectors, as is being shown by the sudden Tory appetite for steel tariffs. In fact, once Union "closed shops" went, a lot of the arguments for privatisation, disappeared it could be argued. You're right that it's not a binary choice. My comment was a refutation to the suggestion that capitalism has failed. It hasn't, although it's going through a rough patch at the moment. It's still the most durable and successful of all economic models. As for rail privatisation: I can't comment on what has happened to rail services since I left the UK in 2005, but up to that time privatisation had led to certain things getting better and others worse. The privatisation I strongly disagreed with was water, which created a series of private monopolies. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 29, 2022 20:22:55 GMT
Agreed on the need for regulation of markets. I do not agree with high taxes, which to my mind stifle entrepreneurship and can quickly become ideological and punitive. Not high. Higher. And fairer. The problem is that "fairer" is both loaded (nobody believes their worldview is unfair) and subjective (my view of a "fairer" tax system would probably be very different from yours). |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 30, 2022 6:03:55 GMT
Land tax would be one way to make things more equitable
Putting more resources into tax evasion
Tightening up some of the more obvious tax evasion schemes
Taxing polluters
Tweaking income tax - especially for anyone earning over £100K etc
|
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 30, 2022 13:58:34 GMT
Why is the alternative to "neo liberal dogma" necessarily "hardline socialism". That's just standard Tory "lets scare the voters" nonsense. What is crystal clear is that certain de-Nationalisations were done for purely ideological reasons and are far better handled in the public sector. The railways is a no brainer, nearly everyone accepts Privatisation has been an utter catastrophe, even some Conservatives. Certainly some Utilities would be better handled in public ownership, and as the ideological Brexit (without the customs union) has been imposed, then the "free market" will likely kill off a lot of self sufficiency in important sectors, as is being shown by the sudden Tory appetite for steel tariffs. In fact, once Union "closed shops" went, a lot of the arguments for privatisation, disappeared it could be argued. You're right that it's not a binary choice. My comment was a refutation to the suggestion that capitalism has failed. It hasn't, although it's going through a rough patch at the moment. It's still the most durable and successful of all economic models. As for rail privatisation: I can't comment on what has happened to rail services since I left the UK in 2005, but up to that time privatisation had led to certain things getting better and others worse. The privatisation I strongly disagreed with was water, which created a series of private monopolies. Well, it's only successful until it isn't and it certainly seems to be in it's end game. It is making no effort to adapt for a future, Greed is just too rooted in the system to allow for adaption. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 30, 2022 15:33:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 30, 2022 19:52:43 GMT
Land tax would be one way to make things more equitable Putting more resources into tax evasion Tightening up some of the more obvious tax evasion schemes Taxing polluters Tweaking income tax - especially for anyone earning over £100K etc Land Value Tax is a potentially interesting proposition that would address the issue of land banking. By "tax evasion", I assume you mean tax avoidance – since tax evasion is illegal, an "obvious tax evasion scheme" would quickly land its perpetrators in prison. Or did you actually mean evasion? As for "tweaking income tax" for earnings over £100,000: we already have an effective tax band of 60% between £100,000 and £125,00 due to the removal of the personal allowance, plus a rate of 45% over £150,000. In addition, we have to add 3.25% for employees' national insurance (assuming we're talking about earned income) and 15.3% employers' national insurance (assuming we're not talking about the self-employed). How much higher would you like to "tweak" rates? |
|
