Can someone be 'rich' and still have socialist principles?

[GusB]

If I can't afford to give money to rebuilding projects and need it to survive, then I will not do so. If I was a billionaire with all sorts of expenditure to give away, I would chose to do so whenever I wished to do so, and where I wish to do so. Any rich person can choose to do that if they so wish. Under socialism though, this wouldn't happen.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/philanthropy?s=t

noun, plural philanthropies.
1.
altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usuallymanifested by donations of money, property, or work to needypersons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, andby generosity to other socially useful purposes.
2.
the activity of donating to such persons or purposes in this way:
to devote one's later years to philanthropy.
3.
a particular act, form, or instance of this activity:
The art museum was their favorite philanthropy.
4.
an organization devoted to helping needy persons or to other sociallyuseful purposes.

Wealthy people can choose to give their money away under whichever system of government exists. We all set a basic limit of what we think we need to live on. The rest is "luxury", and maybe some of that might be better spent on good causes.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/philanthropy?s=t

Ahh yes, philanthropy is what I was referring to! I've noticed on Wikipedia that many billionaires such as Richard Branson and Bill Gates are referred to as philanthropists.

 

[GusB]

If you google the relevant figures, the majority of households in the U.K. are owner occupiers.



If you’ve been given the house by the state because you need it, you should give it up if you no longer need it.

I will be forced to give up my house, that I’ve paid an incredible amount for over the years, if I can no longer pay the mortgage! Maybe I’ve tweaked the pegonias outside or changed the patio. Maybe I also call
it home. That will make no difference!

Is it right that someone whose been given a house on the state, has never paid market rates for it and may no longer need it, should have protected ownership of it, whereas I don’t have protection as a private market buyer?!

You and I are never going to agree on this. Many people will never be able to buy, nor even rent at "market rates" simply because they don't earn enough. Some are excluded from the housing market entirely because they've been unfortunate enough to have a poor credit record. Where else do people go? Again, the council "market" is seen as the housing provider of last resort, and it really need not be this way.

The whole right-to-buy thing has been discussed in these forums before. I'm not against buying a house you've lived in for years, but what is needed is a replenishment of the housing stock that has been sold off over the years. There needs to be a good mix of housing types, whether it be 3- or 4-bedroom family homes, or simply a "studio" flat for singletons who don't intend to stay too long and may well move on to another job in another town at some point in the future. If you want to have a flexible, mobile workforce, the housing situation needs to reflect this.

 

[Bromley boy]

Where else do people go? Again, the council "market" is seen as the housing provider of last resort, and it really need not be this way.

Around here it isn’t seen as a housing provider of any resort. Unless you’re one of the chosen few. Otherwise you’ll end up sofa surfing, with friends/family, or on the streets!

Have you ever bought a flat in London? You’ll soon agree with me, if so!

The whole right-to-buy thing has been discussed in these forums before. I'm not against buying a house you've lived in for years, but what is needed is a replenishment of the housing stock that has been sold off over the years. There needs to be a good mix of housing types, whether it be 3- or 4-bedroom family homes, or simply a "studio" flat for singletons who don't intend to stay too long and may well move on to another job in another town at some point in the future. If you want to have a flexible, mobile workforce, the housing situation needs to reflect this.

I do agree with you on this!

Right to buy has failed without the housing stock being replenished!

 

[AlterEgo]

A better question would be “how poor can you be and still have libertarian or fiscally conservative ideals?”

 

[EM2]

It's fair enough on those who hold socialist principles and don't mind paying the extra levels of tax. But not everyone holds these principles, especially not the majority of wealthy people who want to keep what they have earned.

I am by no means rich, but I would be willing to pay higher taxes in return for better public services, and I would be happy for that to be the cause even if I were much better off. Yes, I could donate money to particular projects that I think are important, but I do not have the necessary skills and knowledge to make sure that that money is spent properly. You could argue that the Government doesn't either, I suppose...

If I was wealthy, I wouldn't want to be paying 45% of my earnings in tax, and sometimes you will find a socialist who isn't willing to do so either.

Then you are not a socialist.

 

[Dai Corner]

Regarding keeping your council house if you 'no longer need it' because of increased income, I think there's a good argument for increasing the rent to market levels and using the increased revenue to build more council houses.

I know of a mother who was given social housing when her daughter was a toddler and she was no longer with the father and unemployed. Now, 15 years on, the daughter is grown up and working, mum has returned to work and met a man who has moved in. Their household income is probably over £60k gross. Do they deserve a below-market rent?

 

[SteveP29]

If you ask me it's like being a Jew voting for Nazis, or Turkeys voting for Christmas, or immigrants voting for the BNP.

Bit of an extreme analogy isn't it?
Nobody ever died or were deliberately hunted and killed because they are socialist and got rich.

 

[SteveP29]

You and I are never going to agree on this. Many people will never be able to buy, nor even rent at "market rates" simply because they don't earn enough. Some are excluded from the housing market entirely because they've been unfortunate enough to have a poor credit record. Where else do people go? Again, the council "market" is seen as the housing provider of last resort, and it really need not be this way.

Sadly, that is true, I live that.
I could afford mortgage payments, but my salary just does not give me enough room to save for the required deposit.
My partner and I could not afford to rent privately without state assistance (Housing benefit)
My credit record is nipping clean but still wouldn't help.

The only options to own our own property are when either both my parents die (and I sell or move into their house) or my partners mother and step father die (and we do the same) or I take a degree at university and get a higher paying job (but then who wants a 25 year mortgage beginning when they're 50 years old? as that's how old I'd be if I were to start this degree tomorrow)

 

[chorleyjeff]

If you want a really good example, it would in fact be none other than Jeremy Corbyn who denies being rich despite his six-figure salary of about £137,000. That salary is of course according to The Independent. But then again he denies being rich, which would depend on how you define 'rich'. I don't think Corbyn is malicious with intent, I just think he is on the wrong side of history with some of his socialist views and his praising of both Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Michael Moore may be another good example of a champagne socialist, but I am not as informed with him as I am with Jezza.

I think rich is a relative term.
Compared to most people in the world we in the U.K. are all rich except for a few who choose to be outside normal society, either through ill health or sometimes choice. I see nothing wrong with some people getting more than others but at the moment the difference between the highest and lowest paid is too high with the top few not paying their fair share. I'm not sure what the answer is but crashing the economy will do nothing to help those at the bottom of the pay league.

 

[SteveP29]

There needs to be a good mix of housing types, whether it be 3- or 4-bedroom family homes, or simply a "studio" flat for singletons who don't intend to stay too long and may well move on to another job in another town at some point in the future. If you want to have a flexible, mobile workforce, the housing situation needs to reflect this.

Unfortunately, a housing developer (Barratt etc) will take the plot of land they have and their architects/ designers will design the development to maximise the number of properties on it to realise the most profit, this unfortunately means 2,3 and 4 bedroom houses and flats, they build towards maximum profit, not need

 

[thejuggler]

Something I heard on radio many years go:

Difference between a rich socialist and a rich capitalist.

The socialist will pay £250,000 for a car and be happy paying taxes for a road to drive it on.

The capitalist will pay £250,000 for the car, add £10,000 of extras and complain about potholes.

 

[DarloRich]

A better question would be “how poor can you be and still have libertarian or fiscally conservative ideals?”

answer: there came none...................

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is it right that someone whose been given a house on the state, has never paid market rates for it and may no longer need it, should have protected ownership of it, whereas I don’t have protection as a private market buyer?!

"Market rates". It's a glib phrase that means very little. What is a market rate? In my last rental property the landlord cut us a good deal, we were paying less than other people on the same street were and we had a nicer house. Is that a market rate? Or should we have lost a few rights in exchange for negotiating a good price? I own my new home, but we bought it from a mortgagee in possession- it was a repo. So we got a good price. Is that a market rate?

And "a house on the state"? If you're working you pay your rent out of your own money. If you're not, or you're on a low income, then you get housing benefit. Doesn't matter who your landlord is, the same deal applies. You can even get help from the government if you can't pay your mortgage (although it has just changed from a grant to a loan).

To summarise:

If you are private market buyer with a mortgage, then the mortgage lender can take your house off you if you don't pay them.

If you are a social tenant with a council landlord, then the council can take your house off you if you don't pay them or if you or your family are guilty of anti-social behaviour, subletting, etc.

If you are a social tenant with a housing association, then the housing association can take your house off if you don't pay them or if you or your family are guilty of anti-social behaviour, subletting, etc.

If you are a private tenant, then the landlord can take your house off you if you don't pay them. Or if they want the house back for themselves. Or if the landlord has failed to pay their mortgage. Or, once you're out of the fixed term, for literally any reason at all, as a landlord can gain possession without having to give a reason.

Social tenants with a council landlord have slightly more protection than social tenants with a housing association landlord. The former tend to have secure tenancies, and so the court has discretion to suspend possession orders in cases of rent arrears. The latter tend to have assured tenancies and, if the rent arrears are more than two months, the court doesn't have discretion to suspend a possession order. Off you go.

Private tenants have significantly fewer rights but I'm sure you're not arguing for a race to the bottom where anyone can be evicted at any time for any reason.

I will be forced to give up my house, that I’ve paid an incredible amount for over the years, if I can no longer pay the mortgage! Maybe I’ve tweaked the pegonias outside or changed the patio. Maybe I also call it home. That will make no difference!

And, ultimately, you will face the same fate regardless of who owns your home. If you don't pay your rent, regardless of the landlord, you will eventually be evicted. The only variation is how long it takes. But, believe me, mortgage lenders often take longer to repossess than even local authority landlords. In the current climate, mortgage lenders are happy to let things run on if you have plenty of equity and their loan is secure. And if you don't have plenty of equity they don't bother repossessing because they won't get their money back. Forebearance is the name of the game.

There's this idea that local authority landlords are these kind, gentle benefactors who will let you keep your home even if you don't pay the rent. If only that were true. Councils are ruthless with people who don't pay their rent. If you don't pay them, they'll have you out. And they won't give you another home because, if you don't pay your rent, you're "intentionally homeless".

The vast majority of my job is dealing with rent arrears and council tax arrears. And councils don't hang about if you owe them money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tax is a real issue in the UK because we have taxes that are kind of too high

Do we? Compared with much of western Europe our taxes are very low.

and with Switzerland not far away it would be easy for big companies to just locate there.

Personal taxation in Switzerland is of roughly the same magnitude as here. When looking at it what most people forget is that like most other European countries health insurance is a separate cost. Once you add it on you're in roughly the same magnitude in percentage terms. (Though incomes tend to be a bit higher, part of that is because of the value of the franc - in real terms they're about the same as here, again).

 

[Bletchleyite]

There needs to be a good mix of housing types, whether it be 3- or 4-bedroom family homes, or simply a "studio" flat for singletons who don't intend to stay too long and may well move on to another job in another town at some point in the future. If you want to have a flexible, mobile workforce, the housing situation needs to reflect this.

This is one of the big problems in the housing market at present - it's more profitable to build 4 bedroom detached family homes[1], so most of what goes up is that. But with increasing numbers of one-person households, one bedroom flats (and one bedroom plus box room) type flats are needed - and yet they aren't being built (and the ones that are tend to be quite grim). This does require rather more regulation in the market.

(I doubt you'll sell many on actual studio flats, as not having a separate bedroom is really rather rubbish, but you can design a well-laid-out one bedroom flat that is barely much bigger but does have an extra wall in it)

[1] Apparently that is a fact but I've never quite understood why it is actually true, given that a 4 bedroom family home sized building can contain maybe three such flats, and three such flats tend to sell for more than 1/3 of said family home each - and you can economise further by making the building bigger, typically to a building about twice the size of said home containing about 6 flats.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

A better question would be “how poor can you be and still have libertarian or fiscally conservative ideals?”

Like socialism, libertarianism expects inherent good in human beings to prevent things going wrong. They believe in as little regulation as possible and think that the market should be left to do it's work. That's what makes it different from liberalism in that a liberal would believe that the government should intervene whenever it becomes necessary.

I am by no means rich, but I would be willing to pay higher taxes in return for better public services, and I would be happy for that to be the cause even if I were much better off. Yes, I could donate money to particular projects that I think are important, but I do not have the necessary skills and knowledge to make sure that that money is spent properly. You could argue that the Government doesn't either, I suppose...

Then you are not a socialist.

I wouldn't say the government has a great deal of skills and knowledge. Someone once said "the problem with political jokes is that they get elected". Paying tax fro public services also isn't strictly socialism either, because in the UK we do pay taxes for public services.

Bit of an extreme analogy isn't it?
Nobody ever died or were deliberately hunted and killed because they are socialist and got rich.

But like the Nazis with Jews and the BNP with immigrants, Socialism acts directly against the interest of the rich. It might not line them up and kill the rich people (that would be it's older brother, Communism), but it would tax through the teeth until there is equality between everyone. If you're a boss at a workplace you will be automatically be laid off or demoted back down to the average workers because everyone would be running the work force collectively, no matter how unqualified some of them may be. The company then fails because of this new structure, and everyone is left poorer. That's what ends up happening under socialism, everyone ends up poorer. Venezuela isn't doing very well at the moment, in fact people are lead to eat their own pets, and at one point the World of Warcraft currency was more valuable than the Venezuelan currency.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think that a lot of us (including me to an extent) have actually forgotten about what Socialism truly is even. Paying taxes for public services isn't really Socialism, because Scandinavian countries such as Denmark and Sweden have higher taxes for their public services such as free healthcare or everyone getting benefits. Despite what Socialists will tell you, this isn't Socialism because the means of production in some areas are still privately owned and there is a free market and stock exchange.

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism;More
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

So I think from now on we know what we're working with when we talk about Socialism and how some of us wouldn't mind paying higher taxes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But like the Nazis with Jews and the BNP with immigrants, Socialism acts directly against the interest of the rich. It might not line them up and kill the rich people (that would be it's older brother, Communism), but it would tax through the teeth until there is equality between everyone. If you're a boss at a workplace you will be automatically be laid off or demoted back down to the average workers because everyone would be running the work force collectively, no matter how unqualified some of them may be. The company then fails because of this new structure, and everyone is left poorer. That's what ends up happening under socialism, everyone ends up poorer. Venezuela isn't doing very well at the moment, in fact people are lead to eat their own pets, and at one point the World of Warcraft currency was more valuable than the Venezuelan currency.

That's (pure) communism, which can be found at one extreme end of socialism, not socialism in and of itself. Indeed, it's even at one extreme end of *communism*!

Extremes in politics are rarely if ever a good thing, whatever extreme it is.

 

[AlterEgo]

Like socialism, libertarianism expects inherent good in human beings to prevent things going wrong. They believe in as little regulation as possible and think that the market should be left to do it's work. That's what makes it different from liberalism in that a liberal would believe that the government should intervene whenever it becomes necessary.

I know what libertarianism is - it doesn’t answer my question.

Socialism usually relies on a planned, heavily regulated or managed economy to a degree. It does not rely on the inherent good in human beings.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

That's (pure) communism, which can be found at one extreme end of socialism, not socialism in and of itself. Indeed, it's even at one extreme end of *communism*!

Extremes in politics are rarely if ever a good thing, whatever extreme it is.

Socialism often leads to communism, even Karl Marx admits this. They aren't so heavily different from each other aside from a few practices.

I know what libertarianism is - it doesn’t answer my question.

Socialism usually relies on a planned, heavily regulated or managed economy to a degree. It does not rely on the inherent good in human beings.

Yes it does. It expects people to be altruistic and be willing to give up a lot of their money for the greater good so they can properly redistribute the wealth. It also doesn't have any safe guards against it's own bureaucracy nor against the state abusing all the power it is given under the system. It's reliant completely on faith of good people to all go along with it, but in reality not everyone wants to go along with it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Socialism often leads to communism, even Karl Marx admits this. They aren't so heavily different from each other aside from a few practices.

Socialism is a wide spectrum, and even that definition you posted supported that. Note the key part of the definition, "owned or regulated". "Owned" would give you communism, but "regulated" is a very wide spectrum.

Yes, Karl Marx thought it was a transition stage to communism, but he is one individual - he doesn't have to be right!

Most of the Western European countries other than the UK are socialist to some extent in their outlook compared with the UK, particularly Scandinavia but even to some extent Scotland. I see no sign of them heading towards communism; they have found a happy and workable balance.

 

[NSEFAN]

Yes it does. It expects people to be altruistic and be willing to give up a lot of their money for the greater good so they can properly redistribute the wealth. It also doesn't have any safe guards against it's own bureaucracy nor against the state abusing all the power it is given under the system. It's reliant completely on faith of good people to all go along with it, but in reality not everyone wants to go along with it.

I'd argue that this is actually a property of libertarianism, more so than socialism, as libertarianism is leaning towards anarchy and lack of law, whilst socialism will work more effectively when you can enforce taxation with laws.

The problem of people not wanting to go along with it is the price of living in a modern society. Without co-operation and agreement it's almost impossible to get national infrastructure to work properly. Indeed, a lot of it is inherently loss making, but we still accept the need to subsidise it because without it everyones' quality of life gets worse, including the wealthy. Unless we return to a truly feudal society, the wealthy will always be dependent to some extent on the poorer classes, both for doing work and also buying their products.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Socialism is a wide spectrum, and even that definition you posted supported that. Note the key part of the definition, "owned or regulated". "Owned" would give you communism, but "regulated" is a very wide spectrum.

Yes, Karl Marx thought it was a transition stage to communism, but he is one individual - he doesn't have to be right!

Most of the Western European countries other than the UK are socialist to some extent in their outlook compared with the UK, particularly Scandinavia but even to some extent Scotland. I see no sign of them heading towards communism; they have found a happy and workable balance.

These countries are known as social democracies, and none of them claim to be socialist. Regulation doesn’t mean socialism.

I'd argue that this is actually a property of libertarianism, more so than socialism, as libertarianism is leaning towards anarchy and lack of law, whilst socialism will work more effectively when you can enforce taxation with laws.

Libertarianism expects the same thing as well. In fact in regards to enforcement, that is why socialism ends up with the usual tyrannical government, because there is no other way to enforce the redistribution of wealth.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It also doesn't have any safe guards against it's own bureaucracy nor against the state abusing all the power it is given under the system. It's reliant completely on faith of good people to all go along with it, but in reality not everyone wants to go along with it.

But all of that is true of any political system. It's the eternal question: who polices the policeman?

Even in the libertarian system you seem to consider the ideal, the only safeguard against abuse and exploitation is trust. Libertarianism is entirely reliant on individuals and companies behaving properly. You trust that the hospital doctor won't exploit your desperation, you trust that the food company won't put in dodgy additives to increase their profit margin, you trust that the bloke down the greengrocer's won't diddle with his weighing scales. It's completely reliant on faith.

 

[NSEFAN]

Libertarianism expects the same thing as well. In fact in regards to enforcement, that is why socialism ends up with the usual tyrannical government, because there is no other way to enforce the redistribution of wealth.

Do you not consider the western European nations to be socialist? Perhaps not Venezuelan level, but they most definitely have various social systems which are at least somewhat accountable to the people through democracy. I may disagree with this government and think little of the people in it, but I don't consider it tyrannical.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

But all of that is true of any political system. It's the eternal question: who polices the policeman?

Even in the libertarian system you seem to consider the ideal, the only safeguard against abuse and exploitation is trust. Libertarianism is entirely reliant on individuals and companies behaving properly. You trust that the hospital doctor won't exploit your desperation, you trust that the food company won't put in dodgy additives to increase their profit margin, you trust that the bloke down the greengrocer's won't diddle with his weighing scales. It's completely reliant on faith.

I have acknowledged libertarianisms similar expectation of faith.

Do you not consider the western European nations to be socialist? Perhaps not Venezuelan level, but they most definitely have various social systems which are at least somewhat accountable to the people through democracy. I may disagree with this government and think little of the people in it, but I don't consider it tyrannical.

Considering that the means of production aren’t owned by the workers or the state, and given that there is a free market and stock exchange, I would say it’s most certainly not socialism. As I have said, regulation doesn’t mean there is socialism. What they have is Western Europe is known as Social Democracy where there are social programs with a democratically elected government.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Social democracy is just one part of socialism. It's a continuum. I think you are taking it to mean pure communism, which is only one possible level of it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I have acknowledged libertarianisms similar expectation of faith.

But it's the same of all political systems, even the most balanced and neutral social democracies.

I trust that the government will let me vote when they say they will. I also trust that the government won't gerrymander the electoral boundaries to engineer the result that they want. But if, to choose a random example completely at random, they set up an "Electoral Commission" to change boundaries and give that Electoral Commission guidelines that result in blatant gerrymandering, what can I do about it?

 

[NSEFAN]

Considering that the means of production aren’t owned by the workers or the state, and given that there is a free market and stock exchange, I would say it’s most certainly not socialism. As I have said, regulation doesn’t mean there is socialism. What they have is Western Europe is known as Social Democracy where there are social programs with a democratically elected government.

I think the issue here is labelling. Where everything is owned by the state, everyone is an employee of the state and all business decisions are made by the state, then that would be communism, i.e. absolute socialism. The national infrastructure in this country was once owned and run outright by the state (rail, electricity, gas, water, etc), but there was still plenty of private enterprise too. The roads are still mostly managed by the state, but private businesses can still exist and indeed make use of them. As others have said, there's different amounts of socialism that can be present; I consider our country to be broadly socialist, but less so than some of our European neighbours.