A lesson on why socialism never works

[Rat Faced]

The UK Market has been over-valued for between 5-10 years (depending upon location). Just about everyone connected with the industry knew this and didn't buy during that time, unless it was to sell shortly afterwards at a profit or to rent out.

ok.. where i want to live.. in a country where people buy stuff they can afford would be a good start.
and you give a good example why capitalism istn that great either:
over-valued houses create money that just doenst exist through credits, and when the house is sold because you cant pay the credit you wont even come close to the credits value because you lied about its worth before when you wanted to get as much money as possible...
and this process is made everywhere, and when no lie can be told they just make a law and a patent and its out come is a stupid copyright law for example..

This is Crap, and I'm no fan of Capitalism as most people here will testify.

Property is worth what people are willing to pay, full stop.

Its the BUYERS that push the prices up. Capitalism is usually from the SELLER or PRODUCER downwards.

The "Price" of property that is advertised in Estate Agents is the price that people are paying for similar property in that location at the moment, with a few small additions/subtractions for the amount of work/modernisation required etc.

A very few "Estate Agents", the ones that are not also surveyors (Chartered Surveyors are regulated in the UK, Estate Agents aren't), will try and add on a couple percentage points to that figure (They do work off commision afterall, and no profession can put their hand on their heart and say everyone involved is honest)

Buyers then offer more than that price to ensure they get the property, hence the next ones will show a higher "Price". If people used their common sense and offered less, or the figure shown, the market wouldn't get overvalued.



Edit: Exception; there are times when land is worth more than the "Market" would show. Usually due to necessary infrastructure works that affect everything else. Thats one of the reasons for Compulsary Purchase Orders, so that the Taxpayer doesn't get ripped off by the people that own the property.

[j2k4]

None of the extremism in compensation, or concentration of wealth, is a true reflection of true capitalism, nor any conservative precept I am aware of.

A true conservative capitalism aims for the type of practical integrity generally cited as lacking in today's financial scandals...it allows social and societal condemnation to accrue well and truly to those who trespass against a public propriety, rather than some expedient sought by greedy lawyers, intrusive courts, and a legislature drunk on the wine of non- and anti-constitutional heresy.

This country has never experienced this most equitable of systems - if you have a complaint about American capitalism, talk to the democrats and the republicans.

By the way, when I say 'conservative capitalism', I assert the Reagan Era never got there, either.

On a related note, why the animus toward those who inherit money?

Feel free to denigrate any number of them for slothful living, waste, what-have-you...I would like someone to make a case for confiscation of such wealth via tax or any other method.

If it's yours, it's yours, and if it's theirs, it's theirs; the poor have no claim to the wealth of the rich; relative wealth is not a zero-sum game - if you want what someone else has, get it for yourself, don't tax/steal theirs.

[Rat Faced]

Ah, inheritance...

I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)

I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.

I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)

However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.

Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.

[j2k4]

Ah, inheritance...

I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)

I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.

I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)

However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.

Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.

"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?

Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?

Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?

To whom do these decisions fall?

Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?

The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?

You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?

The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?

If not, explain this, please.

Also:

Please define "excessive"?

[clocker]

If it's yours, it's yours, and if it's theirs, it's theirs; the poor have no claim to the wealth of the rich; relative wealth is not a zero-sum game - if you want what someone else has, get it for yourself, don't tax/steal theirs.

I can agree with you with one major caveat.
Eliminate all the tax shelters/loopholes that are available to only the wealthy.

For too long the wealthy have leveraged their power to protect (and extend) their wealth, ultimately paying far less percentage-wise than the middle and lower classes.

The US tax code is a minefield that can only be successfully gamed by those with the means to hire expertise...expertise not available to the poor or even moderately well-to-do.

A close-to-home example of such "gaming" would be my brother, a successful small business owner.
During the Bush administration a stimulus tax bill was passed that was meant to incentivize purchase of new equipment.
Their tax attorney clued them in to the fact that due to the poor wording of the law, a Mercedes G-wagon- a $90,000 luxury SUV- qualified as a "heavy truck" and buying one would actually net them a tax rebate.

So they did.

I don't begrudge them the ability to own such an egregious vehicle, I do object to them getting a tax break for doing so.

[j2k4]

I concur completely and wholeheartedly.

Now, do I have your vote.

[clocker]

What are you running for?

[j2k4]

I am running for my life.

A simple Tea party can lead to unintended, um.......eventualities.

Politics looms, and is writ large(r than usual).

I endeavor to resist, as ever.

[j2k4]

By the paragraph, then:

What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.

It shouldn't be?

It isn't?

It "happens" all over the place, all the time, here in the U.S.

Our media makes sure you hear naught about it, though, preferring to present the errants as if they are the norm, which they most definitely are not.

Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.

How do communism and socialism "do away with that kind of thing"?

How do communism and socialism "state" everyone should have "equal means to live", i.e., if my neighbor has a Volvo S80, and I have the S40, My government can be expected to address this iniquity, and forthwith, too.

Social classes and such are "eliminated"?

Do communism and socialism "eliminate" personal judgement as well?

You're talking about a, well...you couldn't call it a society, rightly - after all, you're talking about cloning, but by means of legislature and judiciary, rather than scientific means.

Kinda scary-sounding, if you ask me...I mean, gee whiz, Snee, you and I aren't equal - may be more appropriate to say we are not...congruent.

Nor, I think, would you want us to be.

This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.

You speak as if there were a pile of something, designated "WEALTH", upon which a small group of people have set up shop for the express purpose of poking others off it.

One more time:

Wealth is not finite.

Wealth is not zero-sum proposition.

One can make a pile of one's own to sit on, as can one's neighbors and relatives.

[Rat Faced]

Ah, inheritance...

I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)

I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.

I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)

However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.

Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.

"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?

Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?

Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?

To whom do these decisions fall?

Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?

The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?

You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?

The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?

If not, explain this, please.

Also:

Please define "excessive"?

That's not what I said.

I don't believe most of the Rich have earned their money, agreed. I even gave examples of poorly paid people that I believe are worth more than them.

I didn't say those that have earned it should be more favourably taxed. A Tax system should be open and transparent; above all it should be simple.

If not, then you get the situation we have today whereby the Rich and Corporations take advantage of loopholes to avoid the Tax they should be paying. This increases the burden on everyone else.

There are examples of people in this country earning very substantial sums and paying less Tax than those on very modest incomes. Any system that allows this is morally bankrupt, as are the people that do it.

I also declared that the threshold where one should pay any Tax from an Inheritance should be much higher than it is at present. I do not believe that you should not be able to look after your family after you've gone.

However, as I've said, there is a limit.

At the moment I'd put that at 7 figures: Say everything over £1,000,000 should be taxed as income to those individuals that inherited.

You will notice that those that have substantially above this would still be able to reduce the Tax burdon by spreading the money around his familly.

I also do not believe that people should be forced to sell their Homes (as an example) to pay Tax. I have no problem with this Tax being deferred if it is tied up in assets, or indeed that the Government becomes a temporary non-voting shareholder if there is a Company involved, until that debt is paid.