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

[Up_Tilt_390]

Moderators note: split from Branson overrules VTWC - Daily Mail once again to be available onboard

They would both bang on about how awful Branson is but for different reasons that are actually quite similar!

I kid you not, someone actually called Branson a champagne socialist just because of VT's decision in regards to stocking the Daily Mail and his pro-Remain stance in regards to the European Union. This is all despite the fact that, to many British people, Branson is perhaps the epitome of buccaneering capitalism, something that a lot of socialists actually hate him for. To them, Branson is actually a greedy exploitative (not) fat cat that uses his own workers to make himself wealthy, even despite the fact it's all paid work that they've agreed to do through a contract. Either way, they all have one thing in common: both of them hate Richard Branson.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It is a different, independent company though. How much of Virgin Health does he own?

I havent checked and you may well be right that it’s now a separate company allowed to retain the name. I know Branson has divested himself personally from ownership of different portions of the empire over the years. I suppose my point generally is that he’s (very cleverly) built the virgin brand to be seen as “fluffy”, whereas in reality it’s anything but. It’s a profit making group of companies like any other.

Certainly the comments on this forum recently about working for VTEC as a driver were less than complimentary!

To answer for both of you, Virgin Care is 100% owned by Virgin Group according to Wikipedia, and Branson being an owner of the company receives a share of it's profit earnings.

For Bromley boy, well any private company is really a profit making group. Profit is what drives a lot of the private sector, and there's nothing wrong with that so long as it doesn't come at the expense of the workers or the economy, or basically anyone else. As for working for VTEC's working conditions, I think that may be down to it actually being a Stagecoach train company with Virgin branding rights. Virgin Trains West Coast (which is a true Virgin company) has a greater quality of work from what I've heard, so maybe it is just about who's really running the show.

 

[Bromley boy]

I kid you not, someone actually called Branson a champagne socialist just because of VT's decision in regards to stocking the Daily Mail and his pro-Remain stance in regards to the European Union. This is all despite the fact that, to many British people, Branson is perhaps the epitome of buccaneering capitalism, something that a lot of socialists actually hate him for. To them, Branson is actually a greedy exploitative (not) fat cat that uses his own workers to make himself wealthy, even despite the fact it's all paid work that they've agreed to do through a contract. Either way, they all have one thing in common: both of them hate Richard Branson.

To be fair that would accord with my definition of a champagne socialist! Someone who says “Do as I say not as I do”. (Albeit it seems Branson himself wasn’t aware of the VTWC/daily mail storm in a teacup we have seen over the last few days - so perhaps not the best example).

Better examples would be:

- Bono donning his “save the world face” for live aid/8 when appropriate, while investing in Lithuanian shopping centres through tax efficient investment schemes;

- Chris Martin (admittedly a few years back) moaning about hating/being a slave to shareholders while making millions from record sales (and in a recording contract with EMI which has... shock horror. shareholders) .

It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand. And then people slam Lewis Hamilton for making millions and having a good time. At least he doesn’t moralise to others while feathering his own nest.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

To be fair that would accord with my definition of a champagne socialist! Someone who says “Do as I say not as I do”. (Albeit it seems Branson himself wasn’t aware of the VTWC/daily mail storm in a teacup we have seen over the last few days - so perhaps not the best example).

Other examples would be:

- Bono donning his “save the world face” for live aid/8 when appropriate, while investing in Lithuanian shopping centres through tax efficient investment schemes;

- Chris Martin (admittedly a few years back) moaning about shareholders while making millions from record sales (and in a recording contract with EMI which has... shock horror. shareholders) .

It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand. And then people slam Lewis Hamilton for making millions and having a good time. At least he doesn’t moralise to others while feathering his own nest.

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.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

just to be clear: How much may one earn and still be a socialist?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

just to be clear: How much may one earn and still be a socialist?

There's no limit to how wealthy you can be when it comes to being a socialist, it's just at one point they become what's known as a champagne socialist, which is defined as...

champagne socialist
noun
BRITISHderogatory

1. a person who espouses socialist ideals while enjoying a wealthy and luxurious lifestyle.

Corbyn ain't the wealthiest man in Britain, but compared to most workers he's certainly well off. It's kind of funny actually now that I think about it, cause one could argue that it comes from a position of perspective rather than an actual boundary. I mean £137k is wealthy compared to those on minimum wage. I am not the wealthiest man in the world. In fact I don't even earn the average wage, but in comparison to most people in Cuba where the average wage is about $25 a month, even I'm better off than they are. In fact maybe even twenty times better off. I'm not a socialist though, so that's what kind of disqualifies me. The only time I was one was when I didn't have that much money (I've had an inconsistent line of views in my lifetime, believe me).

 

[Bromley boy]

just to be clear: How much may one earn and still be a socialist?

No limit. But surely there’s an inverse relationship between earnings/wealth and credibility as a socialist!?

If you’re a socialist, you presumably believe in egalitarianism. Therefore accumulating piles of wealth is incompatible with espousing socialist values.

I’ll probably be hanged drawn and quartered for saying this! But it used to irritate me in the extreme that the late Bob Crow occupied a council house (thereby depriving a family of it) while commanding a six figure salary as a union Boss.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

No limit. But surely there’s an inverse relationship between earnings/wealth and credibility as a socialist!?

As much as I respect someone's right to believe in what they want, I do not really understand why one would be a socialist if they were wealthy. The policies of socialism act against the wealthy people if anything. If you ask me it's like being a Jew voting for Nazis, or Turkeys voting for Christmas, or immigrants voting for the BNP. Not that I am for identity politics and believe that as part of a certain group these people should vote a certain way, but I can question their decisions sometimes.

If you’re a socialist, you presumably believe in egalitarianism. Therefore accumulating piles of wealth is incompatible with espousing socialist values.

Not necessarily. Egalitarianism is defined as...

egalitarian
ɪˌɡalɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective

1. 1.
   believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
   "a fairer, more egalitarian society"

noun

1. 1.
   a person who advocates or supports the principle of equality for all people.
   "he was a social and political egalitarian"

The second definition might be more suited to what you claim, but the first defintion isn't. Equal rights and opportunities may well include the right to become wealthy, and in fact some socialists think that nobody needs or should be allowed vast amounts of wealth. This would usually be fuelled by jealously and hatred of the rich. Others would rather just have everyone be rich, but often times are just ill-informed about economics since money isn't unlimited in supply, therefore not everyone can be equally rich. Plus, if everyone earns the same, what really is rich after that?

I’ll probably be hanged drawn and quartered for saying this! But it used to irritate me in the extreme that the late Bob Crow occupied a council house (thereby depriving a family of it) while commanding a six figure salary as a union Boss.

I think Bob Crow either just wanted to try and live like the people he claimed to stand up for, or was just a bit of a tight wad. It's kind of funny cause Bob Crow was once a member of the communist party, so maybe he just wanted to get as close to that experience as possible by living in the same conditions and feeling just like everyone else. I don't know him personally, so I can't say any of that is fact or even has much truth to it, it's all just a guess.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't see any hypocrisy at all between being a socialist and being rich. You could argue that they may be going against their direct interests, but that isn't itself hypocritical (indeed you see a fair amount of right wing voters in the US and the UK voting for parties who have policies who negatively affect themselves too, so voting against your own direct interests is not a left only issue). What is hypocritical is when people start doing the opposite of what they publically state. So sending children to private schools despite publically saying you are against them, etc. But simply wanting more equal opportunities, wanting more employee rights, wanting the nationalisation of some industry, etc, I don't see how any of that is incompatible with having money.

 

[GusB]

I’ll probably be hanged drawn and quartered for saying this! But it used to irritate me in the extreme that the late Bob Crow occupied a council house (thereby depriving a family of it) while commanding a six figure salary as a union Boss.

I really cannot understand this notion that you should suddenly move out of a council house the moment that your earnings exceed a certain limit. My grandparents lived in council houses all their lives, and because they'd lived there for so long, the modest savings that they had accrued was more than enough to buy their houses outright with the discounts that were being offered to long-term tenants. I have no doubt that they could have bought at a discount and sold up for a fairly healthy profit later on, but they had spent many years building their homes. Why should anyone be forced to moved because they've had a positive change in income? I'm not sure what Bob Crow's story was - perhaps it was somewhere he felt comfortable living because he'd been there for a long time and, well - it felt like home, perhaps?

As much as I respect someone's right to believe in what they want, I do not really understand why one would be a socialist if they were wealthy. The policies of socialism act against the wealthy people if anything. If you ask me it's like being a Jew voting for Nazis, or Turkeys voting for Christmas, or immigrants voting for the BNP. Not that I am for identity politics and believe that as part of a certain group these people should vote a certain way, but I can question their decisions sometimes.

Rubbish. What about people who have become wealthy through their own hard graft, or possibly due to the fact that they were thrifty enough to save rather than spend? There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a better life for yourself and your family. I would rather see a wealthy socialist who sticks to their principles and gives back in other ways than a wealthy former-socialist that suddenly decides "yay, I've finally made it - screw the rest of you".

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Rubbish. What about people who have become wealthy through their own hard graft, or possibly due to the fact that they were thrifty enough to save rather than spend? There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a better life for yourself and your family. I would rather see a wealthy socialist who sticks to their principles and gives back in other ways than a wealthy former-socialist that suddenly decides "yay, I've finally made it - screw the rest of you".

I haven't at any point objected to people wanting to make a better for themselves or their family. I actually legit do not understand where you got that impression. All I said was that I don't understand how someone could be a wealthy and be a socialist since the policies of socialism generally act against them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I really cannot understand this notion that you should suddenly move out of a council house the moment that your earnings exceed a certain limit. My grandparents lived in council houses all their lives, and because they'd lived there for so long, the modest savings that they had accrued was more than enough to buy their houses outright with the discounts that were being offered to long-term tenants. I have no doubt that they could have bought at a discount and sold up for a fairly healthy profit later on, but they had spent many years building their homes. Why should anyone be forced to moved because they've had a positive change in income? I'm not sure what Bob Crow's story was - perhaps it was somewhere he felt comfortable living because he'd been there for a long time and, well - it felt like home, perhaps?

Sadly that idea has come from the post Thatcher world where we only let the very desperate have new council houses.
It used to be the case that such estates were full of all kinds of people, from different walks of life. Doctors, nurses, policemen, the unemployed, whatever. A proper mix.
But since Thatcher and right to buy, the stock has dwindled and its basically now reserved for those who need to help. And so the idea that if you no longer directly need the help anymore, you don't deserve one was born.

 

[GusB]

I haven't at any point objected to people wanting to make a better for themselves or their family. I actually legit do not understand where you got that impression. All I said was that I don't understand how someone could be a wealthy and be a socialist since the policies of socialism generally act against them.

Isn't the whole point of socialism "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need"? You can be a high earner, have socialist principles and still understand that because you earn more than most, you're going to get hammered with a big tax bill. Anyone with true socialist principles won't actually have a problem with this!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Isn't the whole point of socialism "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need"? You can be a high earner, have socialist principles and still understand that because you earn more than most, you're going to get hammered with a big tax bill. Anyone with true socialist principles won't actually have a problem with this!

Hence why I don't understand why anyone could be rich and still have socialist principles. Who honestly wants to be hit with a big tax bill? Would you voluntarily give away 45% of your hard-earned money just because the socialist government says you have to?

The idea of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' means that you contribute to the best of your ability, and in turn what you get from society is in proportion to your needs. As a matter of fact, the means no matter how hard you work, you only get what you need from society, not what you truly earned.

Isn't that a bigger insult to those who save rather than spend as well as work through their own hard graft than me merely suggesting it is against their interests to believe in those policies, yet I still respect their right to hold said beliefs if they wish to do so?

 

[Bromley boy]

I really cannot understand this notion that you should suddenly move out of a council house the moment that your earnings exceed a certain limit. My grandparents lived in council houses all their lives, and because they'd lived there for so long, the modest savings that they had accrued was more than enough to buy their houses outright with the discounts that were being offered to long-term tenants. I have no doubt that they could have bought at a discount and sold up for a fairly healthy profit later on, but they had spent many years building their homes. Why should anyone be forced to moved because they've had a positive change in income? I'm not sure what Bob Crow's story was - perhaps it was somewhere he felt comfortable living because he'd been there for a long time and, well - it felt like home, perhaps?

The notion, quite simply, is the view that a council house should be a safety net rather than some kind of divine right, given to you by the taxpayer, that you can treat as your own property and even leave to your kids.

If you live in a council flat/house but are elevated by hard work or good fortune to the position where you earn enough to buy (or rent) your own home you should do so.

As a single male would I be able to get a council house? (No).

If I ring up my mortgage company and say “I can’t pay my mortgage any more but my home is “somewhere I feel comfortable living because I’ve been there for a long time and, well - it feels like home””.

Will that stop then repossessing it?! No!

 

[GusB]

Hence why I don't understand why anyone could be rich and still have socialist principles. Who honestly wants to be hit with a big tax bill? Would you voluntarily give away 45% of your hard-earned money just because the socialist government says you have to?

I don't think there's anyone who likes being hit by big tax bills, but some people do understand that it's what is necessary to ensure a decent level of public services for everyone. As I said previously, those with true socialist principles will understand.

The notion, quite simply, is the view that a council house should be a safety net rather than some kind of divine right, given to you by the taxpayer, that you can treat as your own property and even leave to your kids.

If you live in a council flat/house but are elevated by hard work or good fortune to the position where you earn enough to buy (or rent) your own home you should do so.

As a single male would I be able to get a council house? (No).

If I ring up my mortgage company and say “I can’t pay my mortgage any more but my home is “somewhere I feel comfortable living because I’ve been there for a long time and, well - it feels like home””.

Will that stop then repossessing it?! No!

Social housing wasn't always intended to be "housing as a last resort", though. In the early days, people were assessed as to whether they were "respectable" enough to be allocated such a house. As a single male, are you likely to be allocated a council house? No, probably not - that's mainly because there is such a shortage of stock these days.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I don't think there's anyone who likes being hit by big tax bills, but some people do understand that it's what is necessary to ensure a decent level of public services for everyone. As I said previously, those with true socialist principles will understand.

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. 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. There are genuinely people who think the top 1% should be the ones paying for everything.

Tax is a real issue in the UK because we have taxes that are kind of too high, and with Switzerland not far away it would be easy for big companies to just locate there. But lower our taxes? Well, we can't afford to if we have so many not here paying taxes (looking at you Starbucks!), so we need money from somewhere just to have a good level of public services, and even then it isn't enough. It's a bad cycle if you ask me.

 

[HSTEd]

Hence why I don't understand why anyone could be rich and still have socialist principles. Who honestly wants to be hit with a big tax bill? Would you voluntarily give away 45% of your hard-earned money just because the socialist government says you have to?

The idea of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' means that you contribute to the best of your ability, and in turn what you get from society is in proportion to your needs. As a matter of fact, the means no matter how hard you work, you only get what you need from society, not what you truly earned.

Isn't that a bigger insult to those who save rather than spend as well as work through their own hard graft than me merely suggesting it is against their interests to believe in those policies, yet I still respect their right to hold said beliefs if they wish to do so?

How dare I have principles that place an ideal above my personal material worth?

The notion, quite simply, is the view that a council house should be a safety net rather than some kind of divine right, given to you by the taxpayer, that you can treat as your own property and even leave to your kids.

If you live in a council flat/house but are elevated by hard work or good fortune to the position where you earn enough to buy (or rent) your own home you should do so.

As a single male would I be able to get a council house? (No).

If I ring up my mortgage company and say “I can’t pay my mortgage any more but my home is “somewhere I feel comfortable living because I’ve been there for a long time and, well - it feels like home””.

Will that stop then repossessing it?! No!

Why should the state prevent me from building a home, thus forcing me into a market that favours the rich - and then claim that it is my own fault that I am homeless?
Planning restrictions inherently place a moral duty on the Government to ensure everyone has an affordable home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am a 40% taxpayer (though I wouldn't say "rich" that certainly doesn't make me badly off) and am in favour of that percentage increasing provided it was spent on certain things I feel have value to society; at the moment a good example would be the homelessness issue which really needs sorting out.

I am also in favour of a switch from Council Tax to a local income tax (which would clout me hard, but in my view it's fairer than the present property based tax), and to the percentage tax take at Council level being increased in order to ensure the funding of proper public services (and therefore to the abolition of capping).

So yes, you can "wish some of your own money away" on the greater good. Why not?

 

[Bromley boy]

Isn't the whole point of socialism "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need"?

Well then, socialism is breaking down in my neck of the woods!

I’m one of the lucky ones - I’m single and I’ve owned for years - mortgage is still a chunk of change though!

There’s many families near here living in private rented accommodation (£1.5k - £2k per month these days, for a pokey 2 bed flat). Not a cat in hells chance of buying!

There’s some LA flats down the road, complete with loud parties, big families, £40k A45 AMG Mercs parked outside them!

Some are more equal than others....

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

How dare I have principles that place an ideal above my personal material worth?

You are allowed to have these principles, as I have stated beforehand. At least with the system we have now you're allowed to voluntarily give any personal material worth to someone else.

 

[Bromley boy]

Why should the state prevent me from building a home, thus forcing me into a market that favours the rich - and then claim that it is my own fault that I am homeless?
Planning restrictions inherently place a moral duty on the Government to ensure everyone has an affordable home.

How has the state prevented to you buying land, getting the relevant permissions, and building a home?

 

[HSTEd]

How has the state prevented to you buying land, getting the relevant permissions, and building a home?

The state will never grant the relevant permissions for the vast majority of the land most can afford to buy.

It does this to ensure the property owning classes that vote for it are kept wealthy at their expense.
If the state restricts people from building houses anywhere they own - it is the states duty to ensure cheap housing is available to all.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I am a 40% taxpayer (though I wouldn't say "rich" that certainly doesn't make me badly off) and am in favour of that percentage increasing provided it was spent on certain things I feel have value to society; at the moment a good example would be the homelessness issue which really needs sorting out.

I am also in favour of a switch from Council Tax to a local income tax (which would clout me hard, but in my view it's fairer than the present property based tax), and to the percentage tax take at Council level being increased in order to ensure the funding of proper public services (and therefore to the abolition of capping).

So yes, you can "wish some of your own money away" on the greater good. Why not?

If I was a billionaire I'd rather choose which causes I'd be donating towards. There's a few cities or areas that I think would need some renovation or rebuilding, along with some services that would need investment. In your case you'd wish to spend it on homelessness, and that is called generosity, a merit of your own. At least under this system you can choose to do that with the earnings you would have left, though to be fair I don't know what your earnings are. At least you're still free to chose what you do with your money.

 

[HSTEd]

If I was a billionaire I'd rather choose which causes I'd be donating towards. There's a few cities or areas that I think would need some renovation or rebuilding, along with some services that would need investment. In your case you'd wish to spend it on homelessness, and that is called generosity, a merit of your own. At least under this system you can choose to do that with the earnings you would have left, though to be fair I don't know what you're earnings are. At least you're still free to chose what you do with your money.

And if you do you are inevitably crushed and reduced to penury by those who have no scruples.
The free market selects for expediency, at any cost.

 

[GusB]

My last post in the thread where this discussion originated appears to have been lost in the transfer.

Hence why I don't understand why anyone could be rich and still have socialist principles. Who honestly wants to be hit with a big tax bill? Would you voluntarily give away 45% of your hard-earned money just because the socialist government says you have to?

The idea of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' means that you contribute to the best of your ability, and in turn what you get from society is in proportion to your needs. As a matter of fact, the means no matter how hard you work, you only get what you need from society, not what you truly earned.

Isn't that a bigger insult to those who save rather than spend as well as work through their own hard graft than me merely suggesting it is against their interests to believe in those policies, yet I still respect their right to hold said beliefs if they wish to do so?

As I said previously - if you have truly socialist principles, the fact that you're having a slightly bigger chunk of your income taken away in the form of taxes in order to provide decent public services for all should not be a major problem for you.

The notion, quite simply, is the view that a council house should be a safety net rather than some kind of divine right, given to you by the taxpayer, that you can treat as your own property and even leave to your kids.

If you live in a council flat/house but are elevated by hard work or good fortune to the position where you earn enough to buy (or rent) your own home you should do so.

As a single male would I be able to get a council house? (No).

If I ring up my mortgage company and say “I can’t pay my mortgage any more but my home is “somewhere I feel comfortable living because I’ve been there for a long time and, well - it feels like home””.

Will that stop then repossessing it?! No!

Why should I be forced to give up that house? I might have spent years tending my garden. I may well have spent a significant amount of money decorating the interior to the point where it looks like a palace. I am aware that it's not my house and that if I die it will be allocated to the next person on the housing list, but for the short time that I'm around it was my home. I may well leave my council house looking like a squat, but perhaps I am a founder member of the local amateur dramatics society and therefore I'm a valuable pillar of the community. Why should I have to give all that up the moment that my income goes a penny above the arbitrary limit?

As a single male, I'd agree that you're probably not going to be able to get a council house in the current climate. This is because there's far too little stock to go around and families are currently the priority. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it is what it is. A decent local authority/housing association stock of homes of all sizes would be useful, particularly in the current climate where the government want people to up-sticks and move to where the jobs are.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

And if you do you are inevitably crushed and reduced to penury by those who have no scruples.
The free market selects for expediency, at any cost.

Not really, because I can choose to stop giving money to any rebuilding projects. If you're worried about being crushed and reduced to penury by those with no scruples, then socialism is definitely not the course of action that a person would want.

 

[HSTEd]

Not really, because I can choose to stop giving money to any rebuilding projects. If you're worried about being crushed and reduced to penury by those with no scruples, then socialism is definitely not the course of action that a person would want.

So the net effect is that if you want to survive - is not to give any money to anyone ever?

There is a reason modern shareholder capitalism throws away 'tradition' and 'morals' apparently at the drop of a hat.
Those things get your company bankrupted.

 

[Bromley boy]

The state will never grant the relevant permissions for the vast majority of the land most can afford to buy.

It does this to ensure the property owning classes that vote for it are kept wealthy at their expense.
If the state restricts people from building houses anywhere they own - it is the states duty to ensure cheap housing is available to all.

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

Why should I be forced to give up that house? I might have spent years tending my garden. I may well have spent a significant amount of money decorating the interior to the point where it looks like a palace. I am aware that it's not my house and that if I die it will be allocated to the next person on the housing list, but for the short time that I'm around it was my home. I may well leave my council house looking like a squat, but perhaps I am a founder member of the local amateur dramatics society and therefore I'm a valuable pillar of the community. Why should I have to give all that up the moment that my income goes a penny above the arbitrary limit?

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?!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So the net effect is that if you want to survive - is not to give any money to anyone ever?

There is a reason modern shareholder capitalism throws away 'tradition' and 'morals' apparently at the drop of a hat.
Those things get your company bankrupted.

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.