Grooming gangs

[CPFCSaturn]

I have sympathy toward this viewpoint.

The problem is you can't really reign in capitalism within a global system, because the movement of capital is so easy.

You can only attract it....which if you are going to have competition that requires exploitation.

You can't force capital to reside in your country.....There have to be reasons for it to remain. High tax countries are very pleasant places to live.....and I'm sorry but what has been done to Britain over the last few decades doesn't equate to that.

Countries that are attractive for various reasons, lifestyle or economics can afford to use policies that protect rights over other countries......I was never a big fan of globalism and this is one of the reasons....it makes you a slave to capital markets.

England use to be an attractive place in terms of lifestyle with its nice rural villages and cities like London with so much culture. But people go to London now and ask where the English are...There is little connection to the history they were raised with and what greets their eyes walking the places......They see their famous buildings but not the descendants of those that built them.....they hear about knife crime. I see that having an effect on tourism.

Before I go into my answer, I would flip the question on it's head and ask what is the alternative here..? To continue to allow wealth to accrue amongst a tiny number of people, whilst living standards for the majority continue to fall?

This accrued wealth is and will buy up more and more political influence until any hope of rebalancing the scales is gone - is your view that we just have to walk that path?

In terms of your broader question; I think we had a similar exchange on the topic recently, and whilst I accept it's not a simple fix, I also don't accept that we therefore shouldn't bother.

England (and London) are still very attractive if you have money. We still have elite schools and universities where the global rich want to send their children. There are many neighbourhoods in the west and south-west of London which are extremely affluent and propped up by foreign money (see Battersea Power Station, for example). London property is still seen as one of the safest investments you can make, as evidenced by the millions (if not billions) of foreign money pumped into it every year.

I'm not a policy advisor, but some very quick examples of policies which would help;

- Apply a wealth tax on assets - assets are not as easy to move as capital.
- Tax all incomes at the same rate.
- Multiple home ownership should be taxed to the heavens, as should things like yachts and private jets.
- Fixing the council tax system so rates are properly correlated with the value of the property.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Really? I would have thought it's pretty obvious following on from what you posted, or do you think equally distributing wealth would work in the long term.
Mind you I'm not sure what any of this has to do with grooming gangs.

So are you suggesting the explosion in wealth inequality over the last 5 years will lead to better outcomes for everyone? When can we expect to see these outcomes achieved and by what metrics?

When have I mentioned 'equally distributing wealth'..? Lazy socialism analysis, again.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Before I go into my answer, I would flip the question on it's head and ask what is the alternative here..? To continue to allow wealth to accrue amongst a tiny number of people, whilst living standards for the majority continue to fall?

This accrued wealth is and will buy up more and more political influence until any hope of rebalancing the scales is gone - is your view that we just have to walk that path?

In terms of your broader question; I think we had a similar exchange on the topic recently, and whilst I accept it's not a simple fix, I also don't accept that we therefore shouldn't bother.

England (and London) are still very attractive if you have money. We still have elite schools and universities where the global rich want to send their children. There are many neighbourhoods in the west and south-west of London which are extremely affluent and propped up by foreign money (see Battersea Power Station, for example). London property is still seen as one of the safest investments you can make, as evidenced by the millions (if not billions) of foreign money pumped into it every year.

I'm not a policy advisor, but some very quick examples of policies which would help;

- Apply a wealth tax on assets - assets are not as easy to move as capital.
- Tax all incomes at the same rate.
- Multiple home ownership should be taxed to the heavens, as should things like yachts and private jets.
- Fixing the council tax system so rates are properly correlated with the value of the property.

Another post I have time for as I agree with much of your intent.

I also agree that not to bother would be wrong.....though obviously I think the damage done is far too late. Nevertheless no one drowns without struggle and it would be pathetic to do so. Personally I think from here it's about managed decline (which it has been since the 70s but especially for the last 25 years).

I would agree with you on London....for now....but what you are essentially describing is bulkisation for the rich and a crap sandwich for everyone else. However, house prices or no house prices the same flood that is flowing into nice areas of Cheshire will eventually get to them.....At which point, having sh1t the bed for everyone else, they will feck off.

As for your economic suggestions.

- Apply a wealth tax on assets - assets are not as easy to move as capital. (this is essentially punishing the middle class and boomers...(asset rich, wealth poor)....It's the biggest voter block so obviously isn't done). My feelings on it....it's awful, because a lot of these people are blameless, but I can see it being done....most of them worked hard for what they have.
- Tax all incomes at the same rate. (Does that work? Don't know, might attract capital though)
- Multiple home ownership should be taxed to the heavens, as should things like yachts and private jets. (morally I agree with you, however that a lot of rich capital flight in response)
- Fixing the council tax system so rates are properly correlated with the value of the property. (that old chestnut....Maybe that'll happen in another lifetime)

 

[CPFCSaturn]

- Apply a wealth tax on assets - assets are not as easy to move as capital. (this is essentially punishing the middle class and boomers...(asset rich, wealth poor)....It's the biggest voter block so obviously isn't done). My feelings on it....it's awful, because a lot of these people are blameless, but I can see it being done....most of them worked hard for what they have.
- Tax all incomes at the same rate. (Does that work? Don't know, might attract capital though)
- Multiple home ownership should be taxed to the heavens, as should things like yachts and private jets. (morally I agree with you, however that a lot of rich capital flight in response)
- Fixing the council tax system so rates are properly correlated with the value of the property. (that old chestnut....Maybe that'll happen in another lifetime)

- It's easy to cap this sort of tax to assets valued from a certain level to protect those you mention - the pensioners who own a £500k house outright are not the appropriate targets.
- There's plenty to suggest it would work.
- The homes don't move though - more houses for sale, prices come down, more people can afford their own home.
- Where there is a will there's a way! I think this example is reflective of many in this space; there is no real appetite to do these things because more often than not, the people who have the authority to pursue it are either themselves very wealthy, or are told what to think by those who are.

 

[georgenorman]

So are you suggesting the explosion in wealth inequality over the last 5 years will lead to better outcomes for everyone? When can we expect to see these outcomes achieved and by what metrics?

When have I mentioned 'equally distributing wealth'..? Lazy socialism analysis, again.

I'm suggesting that taking money from people who have more than some others and giving it to those that have less, or to governments, is a recipe for disaster. Wherever it has been tried it ends up with everyone poorer along with prison and slave labour camps and bullets in the backs of heads.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

taking money from people who have more than some others and giving it to those that have less, or to governments, is a recipe for disaster.

it always was. Always will be.

now, getting back to the OP......what percentage of Groomers were net recipients of Welfare Payments, more than being taxpayers ?

 

[Stirlingsays]

- It's easy to cap this sort of tax to assets valued from a certain level to protect those you mention - the pensioners who own a £500k house outright are not the appropriate targets.
- There's plenty to suggest it would work.
- The homes don't move though - more houses for sale, prices come down, more people can afford their own home.
- Where there is a will there's a way! I think this example is reflective of many in this space; there is no real appetite to do these things because more often than not, the people who have the authority to pursue it are either themselves very wealthy, or are told what to think by those who are.

I think on the multiple homes point that it's certainly valid that housing is far too important to be used as purely a as hording asset by the wealthy. Some requirement for housing to be used in a capacity that makes sense should be valid. I'm certainly with you on the dislike of foreign wealth buying up nice parts of London and leaving them empty.

 

[Stirlingsays]

it always was. Always will be.

now, getting back to the OP......what percentage of Groomers were net recipients of Welfare Payments, more than being taxpayers ?

I suspect most of them were involved in some form of criminality over and above being rapists and sex traffickers.

The communities from which they come cover for them.....which is much ignored by Starmer types.