h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's been pointed out that the consumer boom is funded by borrowed money. Has anybody stopped to think why there is so much money available for borrowing, compared with say, 20 years ago? Who does the lending? Money rich corporations and companies set up by the rich?
Their incomes, aided by huge cuts in corporation tax and high earners income tax. If this money was distributed more fairly the relatively poor would still be spending - but their own money, not someone else's.

Noggin

This is what the Earl of Caithness said of our debt-based money system:

http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/earl.html

This is a reason I was looking for, I was wondering how banks could suport so many expensive houses and loans, and now here is the anwser staring me in the face, the companies buy back the debt and you spend the money you borrow, and that money goes back into the hole left by the loan, the only thing that changes is that you owe more money and yet a over inflaited products....

Hey yea lets get a dictator in we already have as good a political system. (not democrasy)

-- DoctorMO --

The thing that gets me about banks is the way you give them your money to save in an account, and they go away and spend it!

You guys will soon realise that the only answer to Doc's question is 42.

That this question could be asked at all proves that Brits and Americans can never understand each other.

Yes but the USA founds it's self on enterprise and has worked up the the multi national. which we now get people who belive in the corperatist mentality were they belive only masive MNCs can get anything done in the world.



-- DoctorMO --

That statement is more difficult to understand than my tax return.

how much did you get?

-- DoctorMO --

OK DoctorMO
It was Blatherskite the Mugwump's statement that puzzled me not your's.

Pretty simple, actually. An American would never, ever, under any circumstances, suggest they're being taxed too little. This isn't just generalization. If we were only being taxed $1/year, it would be $1/year too much.

If citizens paid 80-90% of income and never wanted for anything (at all), would it be a better deal all round?

Your nearly there Doc. If in that way citizens had all they needed they could spend the other 10/20% on what they wanted.
With or without money, needs should be provided wants should be earned.
B the M - I understand that American view on tax a lot of Brits feel the same way. What has that to do with Americans and Brits understanding each other ?

Welcome to Soviet United Kindgom.

So the Water industry should be renationalised and water provided free. Healthcare, hospitals, emergency services should be unimpeded by bureaucracy and 'cost-targets'. Introduce coupons for essential foodstuffs (locally produced bread, dairy, fruit, veg, meat). Hike prices (by taxation) of imported 'luxury' foodstuffs. Cap salaries way down ... increase the 'value' of money. Subsidise public transport heavily. Penalise private transport heavily. Prohibit the manufacture and sale of uselsss tacky crap by taxation on carbon/energy.

Any more?

DMT

That's a pretty big step you've taken Doc.
The last step < Prohibit the manufacture and sale of uselsss tacky crap by taxation on carbon/energy. > was your idea. (Post 37).
Politics and religion apart it is money that is the route of all evil.
It's now being replaced by the credit card. When we can pay our taxes using plastic could it be that we shall be home and dry ?
Always assuming of course that you have been allocated a credit card in the first place.

It's an... idea, Doc, except it would just create a society where everyone is equal.
And some are more equal than others.
I agree the water industry (and rail, and in fact any industry that is classed "essential") should be re-natonalised, but the services they provide shouldn't be free, merely subsided and any profits put back into the services, instead of shareholders.
Oberon2001

I quite like that carbon tax idea. Would make people really keen on alternative energy sources and improved efficiency. Could be superb for the environment.

don't forget that any such tax would need to be reglated in CO2 consumtion too, so if you Grew a plant, you'd be charged tax,

-- DoctorMO --

CO2 consumption would be a good thing wouldn't it?

The problem is with rapid emissions of long-term stored CO2, as in the burning of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, growing a forest, or a crop of miscanthus, then burning it for fuel would be net zero in terms of CO2 emission, becuase your plants absorbed the CO2 in the first place.

DMT

no you don't get it, accountants don't think like that, they will see that you are aquiring to your ownership Carbon, and you there for should be charged inport tax. as laughable as it sounds, burning it might be rewarded.

-- DoctorMO --