audio-talk

Ali Tait wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 7:17 pm I’d guess it would be cheaper in the end to renationalise the utilities than to cover the cost of keeping bills down.

You would think, but I am sure there will be some reason why not.

You would think, but I am sure there will be some reason why not.

And as it happens, exactly the same answer will fit DQ's post.

I fail to understand why the government is so reluctant to use a windfall tax on profits over and above those expected in a normal year. Presumably normal profit levels are sufficient to finance futher exploitation of gas/oil fields.

A Tory believes in trickle down economics not windfall tax .

Ideologically , if you’re a Tory there is no such thing as excessive profits

Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:15 pm A Tory believes in trickle down economics not windfall tax

Though we both know that that is disproved by the existence of savings accounts. (And other things, but just being able to not spend will do, to show the problem)

Energy companies already pay 30%+10% tax above normal business tax rates…however I agree there is a strong argument for a windfall tax given the current situation.

We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.

Michael Foot

Nick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:47 am We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.

Michael Foot

Timeless and brilliant.

Hear hear!

Nick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:47 am We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.

Michael Foot

How does "the system" ensure that those who really need, get, and those who can't be arsed, don't ?

I've got "knowledge" (from Jean as a home carer) of many (seemingly) deserving cases who really needed help, not getting it, and "hearsay" about those getting it when they should be capable of supporting themselves.

I am aware that the "disabilities" that some suffer from are many and various, and not necessarily obvious to the casual observer.

It all depends on whether or not you believe in the existence of the undeserving poor.

How does "the system" ensure that those who really need, get, and those who can't be arsed, don't ?

Its in the first line.

We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions

Instead of obsessing about someone who is not the most deserving getting more, you should focus on those that need help getting it. A few who you feel are undeserving getting something is far less of a inequality than the top getting it all, but you have been trained to worry about the first and that allows the second to go unnoticed.

Was in Saint tropez day before yesterday, a 1/3 of the super yachts where registered in South Africa, clearly that's a country of extremes.
And as a uk taxpayer we can be content that the £40 m from uk aid is helping the starving and the thirsty.. we hope !
I hazard a guess that the time Michael foot wrote that was a time when uk aid could well have been spent on super yachts

Back in the UK there such a mix of people and views. But nothing we write on here will change anything.

Here we have food banks that support people who spend there allowances on phones and the latest tvs loaded with all that sky can offer.

When it should be the homeless and genuinely needy, many of whom are too proud to use them.

it's a difficult job to differentiate
So they just accept all. Quite right !

I genuinely know of a millionaire who gets most of her food from a food bank

steve s wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 10:54 am Back in the UK there such a mix of people and views. But nothing we write on here will change anything.

Well, it might influence what a few others think and that is where change starts.

Greg wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:39 am

steve s wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 10:54 am Back in the UK there such a mix of people and views. But nothing we write on here will change anything.

Well, it might influence what a few others think and that is where change starts.

Let's hope so Greg, but I wouldn't put money on it.