Israel wins Eurovision, celebrates in style

[Zetetic]

We're getting wildly off-topic now but I'm intrigued by this notion and would like to hear you expand on it.

Competitive housing associations under various models - co-operatives, non-profit, local government-owned - would be a possible way forward in that scenario.

Personally - and this is why (bizarrely along with proposing ending privatisation of the NHS in England, and suggesting better regulation of online public platforms) I get called a Blairite reformist centrist, I guess - I think the better approach is allow private and corporate renters but
1) Encouraging various models of housing associations again (rather than trying to kill them).
2) Careful regulation of both rents and conditions (it is easy to fuck this up, but that we shouldn't do it).
3) Fixing both wealth taxes and inheritance tax.

And start finding a way to end government support of the property bubble (and - this is not unrelated - fix other ways of saving other than ploughing money in this bubble).

[Dr Rock]

The country thanks you for your contribution. How much is your parents house worth though? They got anything nice in there that you might want to keep when they go? Hopefully it's not worth very much too, guess you'll be out of luck.

I don't want my parents money, I want a fair society. Privilege because your parents have it (and their parents before them)  has never seemed fair to me. It does to you. Ideally we both get to democratically decide which way things are structured. You think the boogie man state takes the money at gun point, that's delusional. If your parents are wealthy you get plenty of advantages, inheritance tax puts some of it back in the community coffers. At the moment we still have far too much advantage-by-background and not enough ways for poor people to progress fairly if they work hard. That's what I've seen in my 49 years, hard-working poor people getting hardly anywhere.

[The Region Legion]

What does this have to do with anything?!

Because it spreads the wealth around, which is what we were talking about. Someone buying that house will likely see a return on that investment over a 10-20 year period as everyone else does and as a result may find themselves wealthier than they were when they first put everything they had into getting that mortgage that seemed insurmountable at the time. Possibly a working class family. Would that not be more helpful to them than government handout?

Housing in the Soviet Union wasn't all dealt with by the government

Private ownership of property was abolished in 1918. It wasn't all dealt with by the government on a day-to-day basis, but they were certainly all owned and constructed by the government, and the shitty work they did still stands across the former USSR to this day as a testament to how much of a terrible idea it is to get a government to do anything practical at all.

and I'm not sure that the Soviet Union is a very transferable example for situations where we're not talking about a country where economic decisions overwhelmed by the influence of the military.

This conversation began with land seizure being on the table for this country. Who do you think carries out land seizure?

I assumed you viewed all tax as identical to genocide.

No, genocide is definitely worse than being taxed.

Value isn't the same as wealth. Property values could all drop (as we all know the value of property is artificial and referred to as a bubble when it's not related to inflation, which is also not a measure of increasing wealth) but maintains it true value in terms of wealth.

So the rich need to be taxed on death and not be able to pass on property so that privilege can't be transferred to their offspring, but actually property ownership isn't really a privilege because values "could all drop" (they never have to a degree at which you can't trust the housing market to generally trend upwards). So why shouldn't the property be inherited?

Competitive housing associations under various models - co-operatives, non-profit, local government-owned - would be a possible way forward in that scenario.

Who owns the buildings? Who gets the contract to run those co-operatives? Are they paid to do it? Does that pay increase with the more co-operatives they run? Who watches the watchmen ie. how do you stop a co-operative ending up being run as someone's personal fifedom? Who pays for repairs? Do people have to pay to live in them? What happens if they just refuse to pay?

I think the better approach is allow private and corporate renters but
1) Encouraging various models of housing associations again (rather than trying to kill them).
2) Careful regulation of both rents and conditions (it is easy to fuck this up, but that we shouldn't do it).
3) Fixing both wealth taxes and inheritance tax.

They're right to call you a centrist because whilst I don't agree fully with your reasoning it is at least a policy that is achievable and reasonable and who knows, maybe some good comes of it too.

I don't want my parents money, I want a fair society. Privilege because your parents have it (and their parents before them)

My grandfather worked in the mines. My other grandfather was the son of miners. I have a working class background, it's only my generation of the family that is not working class, because the rest of them worked hard and achieved wealth through careful planning. Not actually a rare story in this country, that's the benefit of capitalism.

You think the boogie man state takes the money at gun point, that's delusional.

What happens if I refuse to pay tax?

If your parents are wealthy you get plenty of advantages, inheritance tax puts some of it back in the community coffers. At the moment we still have far too much advantage-by-background and not enough ways for poor people to progress fairly if they work hard. That's what I've seen in my 49 years, hard-working poor people getting hardly anywhere.

I've seen nothing but hard-working poor people become mildly to moderately to extremely wealthy through capitalism. Those that didn't simply don't have the drive, stayed in the same go nowhere job or industry forever because they were comfortable there for the time being, then 1 year turned to 5 years, turned to 10 years, and they're wondering why they can't afford to buy a place when those around them are.

Explains the disparity of our positions well though.

[Zetetic]

but they were certainly all owned and constructed by the government

No, they weren't. That's not how the housing sector worked in the Soviet Union.

[Zetetic]

Who owns the buildings?

The associations.

Who gets the contract to run those co-operatives? Are they paid to do it?

This questions don't make any sense to me.

Who watches the watchmen ie. how do you stop a co-operative ending up being run as someone's personal fifedom?

With governance structures and constant vigilance. Like how all regulation has to work in reality.

Who pays for repairs? Do people have to pay to live in them?

The association (Edit: like now), and yes.

What happens if they just refuse to pay?

Eviction same as now, although we can imagine the incentives for the nature of the process might be different to how it is when it's dominated by the interests of private capital.

[Dr Rock]

Who owns the buildings? Who gets the contract to run those co-operatives? Are they paid to do it? Does that pay increase with the more co-operatives they run? Who watches the watchmen ie. how do you stop a co-operative ending up being run as someone's personal fifedom? Who pays for repairs? Do people have to pay to live in them? What happens if they just refuse to pay?

https://www.peabody.org.uk/

Just one, I know it quite well because someone I know lives in one of their homes. Low rent, not a fiefdom. If you don't pay the rent you get evicted. You're liable for some repairs, they pay for others. It's not an unworkable fantasy, it's a great model.

[Zetetic]

This conversation began with land seizure being on the table for this country. Who do you think carries out land seizure?

That's irrelevant here.

My point is that the Soviet economy remained overwhelmingly directed towards the ends of maintaining the dominance of the military inside the Union, and towards responding towards the external threats that it believed the Union faced.

That's much more of an explanation for its struggle to go beyond serving basic needs, mostly, than details of capital ownership or even arguably the obsession with centralised planning until the late-'80s. (Indeed the late-'80s perhaps showed how a rushed transition to something akin to a market economy was disastrous while, amongst other problems, the military remained so dominant in the economy.)

a testament to how much of a terrible idea it is to get a government to do anything practical at all.

There are plenty of examples of private ownership and direction of housing supply, including in this country, that would seem to condemn on the same asinine test.

[Zetetic]

I've seen nothing but hard-working poor people become mildly to moderately to extremely wealthy through capitalism.

Nurses? Teachers? Speech and Language Therapists?

I'm sure that if you work extremely hard at becoming mildly-to-moderately-to-extremely wealthy it's possible (with luck mind you) to do so - there's all sorts of places to extract cash without adding value if you're motivated in that direction.

Nevertheless, even if we see this as a good thing, it's neither sufficient for people born without wealth or necessary for people born in to it. (Trivially, wealth begets wealth for most of the last few decades - indeed often the worst thing from an investment perspective that people who inherit large amounts of money can do is try to be clever or innovative or helpful with it. Better to live off the statistics of the economy as a whole or gamble on bubbles - both of which are fairly safe if you've got enough wealth to begin with.)

For someone who's worried about driving society forward, this is obviously a bad thing - since the second world war, we're drifting more and more towards the position where the best way to have more money is simply to have a lot of it in the first place (despite the small number of people now with extremely high incomes by other routes).

[NoSleep]

So the rich need to be taxed on death and not be able to pass on property so that privilege can't be transferred to their offspring, but actually property ownership isn't really a privilege because values "could all drop" (they never have to a degree at which you can't trust the housing market to generally trend upwards). So why shouldn't the property be inherited?

Is all property a roof over one's head? I don't think so. I think you conflated the two when you spoke of "property values".

[royce coolidge]

Because it spreads the wealth around, which is what we were talking about. Someone buying that house will likely see a return on that investment over a 10-20 year period as everyone else does and as a result may find themselves wealthier than they were when they first put everything they had into getting that mortgage that seemed insurmountable at the time. Possibly a working class family. Would that not be more helpful to them than government handout?
Private ownership of property was abolished in 1918. It wasn't all dealt with by the government on a day-to-day basis, but they were certainly all owned and constructed by the government, and the shitty work they did still stands across the former USSR to this day as a testament to how much of a terrible idea it is to get a government to do anything practical at all.
This conversation began with land seizure being on the table for this country. Who do you think carries out land seizure?
No, genocide is definitely worse than being taxed.


So the rich need to be taxed on death and not be able to pass on property so that privilege can't be transferred to their offspring, but actually property ownership isn't really a privilege because values "could all drop" (they never have to a degree at which you can't trust the housing market to generally trend upwards). So why shouldn't the property be inherited?

Who owns the buildings? Who gets the contract to run those co-operatives? Are they paid to do it? Does that pay increase with the more co-operatives they run? Who watches the watchmen ie. how do you stop a co-operative ending up being run as someone's personal fifedom? Who pays for repairs? Do people have to pay to live in them? What happens if they just refuse to pay?

They're right to call you a centrist because whilst I don't agree fully with your reasoning it is at least a policy that is achievable and reasonable and who knows, maybe some good comes of it too.

My grandfather worked in the mines. My other grandfather was the son of miners. I have a working class background, it's only my generation of the family that is not working class, because the rest of them worked hard and achieved wealth through careful planning. Not actually a rare story in this country, that's the benefit of capitalism.
What happens if I refuse to pay tax?
I've seen nothing but hard-working poor people become mildly to moderately to extremely wealthy through capitalism. Those that didn't simply don't have the drive, stayed in the same go nowhere job or industry forever because they were comfortable there for the time being, then 1 year turned to 5 years, turned to 10 years, and they're wondering why they can't afford to buy a place when those around them are.

Explains the disparity of our positions well though.

your last paragraph indeed proves that when I called you a prick I was massively underestimating the real depth of your bigotry
and prejudice.
Just because people remain in a job (elderly care?) does not mean they lack drive or ambition,perhaps they may be happy in their role doing real good in the world
I imagine you think wideboy salesmen and property "investors" are the cream of the country,while minimum wage plebs doing vital work are losers and have to be subsidised.This is just offensive trolling shit which I am sure you are aware.
Disparity of positions ? not in the same universe .

[The Region Legion]

Just because people remain in a job (elderly care?) does not mean they lack drive or ambition,perhaps they may be happy in their role doing real good in the world

Nurses? Teachers? Speech and Language Therapists?

These people are all aware of what their job pays. Do they get paid enough? Probably not, that's the life they chose. How do they get paid more? "The government decrees that all nurses will now be paid £40k a year". How long do you think the NHS lasts after that point? I guess some of that £350 million a week Boris promised to go back into the NHS could help. it would pay for 420,000 nurses at that salary, not bad, although obviously its more like 210,000 with the actual amount. Will that fix the problem? Or will they need more eventually? How about the teachers? The dustmen? They all getting fat raises too? From what source? Maybe you just whack a 100% inheritance tax on everyone and close any loophole that exists to get out of it? Good luck finding anyone making enough money to continue to fund that within 5 years.

I'm sure that if you work extremely hard at becoming mildly-to-moderately-to-extremely wealthy it's possible (with luck mind you) to do so - there's all sorts of places to extract cash without adding value if you're motivated in that direction.

Nature of capitalism I'm afraid.

No, they weren't. That's not how the housing sector worked in the Soviet Union.

Provide source for this please. Soviet Union banned private property ownership in 1918. How does a private landlord or private construction exist in such a political climate?

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Is The Region Legion still here? I thought they had an embarrassing meltdown and fucked off ages ago

[royce coolidge]

Right,so this is a load of tory pull yourselves up by the bootstrap hectoring,"we all get what we choose" bullshit,
I think you forgot to log in on your tenmen account because this is more suited to a Young Conservative meeting.
Got things all your own way yet still feeling hard done by. I really feel this is a wind up,if so you are very convincing.

[Zetetic]

I would suggest Ellman's Socialist Planning as a starting point to even understand the range of different organisations capable of owning property in the Soviet Union and how these operated, noting that these - and private property rights (particularly regarding houses) - varied greatly over its life span. There are then plenty of articles just a Google away about housing policy at various times (encompassing individual ownership, construction being in the purview of individual enterprises, local soviets, enterprise ownership and so on). There's presumably quite a lot of variation between the cities and countryside (as there was in quite a lot of the economy).

It doesn't just boil down to "the government". (And what would that even mean, given that the Soviet state was hardly unitary?)

Soviet Union banned private property ownership in 1918.

This isn't true, is obviously a nonsense to apply across its whole lifespan given the introduction of the NEP only a few years later.

These people are all aware of what their job pays. Do they get paid enough? Probably not, that's the life they chose.

But you accept that some "hard-working poor people" don't end up even "mildly wealthy"?

ots more like 210,000 with the actual amount.

I suppose it's "more like 210,000" insofar as "210,000" is closer to a negative number than "420,000" is.

From what source?

Wealth taxes. I thought you might actually be in favour of encouraging people with wealth to have to be a bit more productive with it.

[bgmnts]

Anyway, Israel...

[The Region Legion]

But you accept that some "hard-working poor people" don't end up even "mildly wealthy"?

You appear to have an issue with reading because I didn't say "all hard working people become wealthy", I said if you choose to become wealthy there is nothing stopping you. It'll be harder for some than others, no doubt, but as I said, I know plenty of working class people who are now pretty well off through a great deal of work on their part. My own family, for starters. If they could do it, why not you or anyone else? Harder now than it was then of course.

I suppose it's "more like 210,000" insofar as "210,000" is closer to a negative number than "420,000" is.

Why would there be a negative number?

Wealth taxes. I thought you might actually be in favour of encouraging people with wealth to have to be a bit more productive with it.

Productive =/= being taken from them and spent by someone else on their "this time it'll definitely work" socialist utopia.

Right,so this is a load of tory pull yourselves up by the bootstrap hectoring,"we all get what we choose" bullshit,
I think you forgot to log in on your tenmen account because this is more suited to a Young Conservative meeting.
Got things all your own way yet still feeling hard done by. I really feel this is a wind up,if so you are very convincing.

What's stopping you becoming a rich man, if that's what you want out of life?

I would suggest Ellman's Socialist Planning

I'm just going to steer away from the entire Soviet Union issue for now until I'm more read up on it.

[Dr Rock]

I said if you choose to become wealthy there is nothing stopping you. It'll be harder for some than others, no doubt, but as I said, I know plenty of working class people who are now pretty well off through a great deal of work on their part. My own family, for starters.

You said your family were miners. How does one miner become wealthier than the miner working alongside him? He mines harder? How do women go up and down the payscale according to ambition and graft in the world of miners?

[Zetetic]

You appear to have an issue with reading because I didn't say "all hard working people become wealthy",

You said:

I've seen nothing but hard-working poor people become mildly to moderately to extremely wealthy through capitalism.

which is extremely ambiguous.

Although it's quite hard to read it so that it actually means this:

I said if you choose to become wealthy there is nothing stopping you.

And I didn't read it to say this, because it's obviously not true.

Why would there be a negative number?

Because of the considerable direct and indirect costs involved in leaving the European Union.

[The Region Legion]

You said your family were miners. How does one miner become wealthier than the miner working alongside him? He mines harder? How do women go up and down the payscale according to ambition and graft in the world of miners?

If I have to explain this to you there's really no hope.

Always fun to pop in guys. Zetetic was his usual intelligent self with much to add. The rest of you, not so much.

[Zetetic]

Anyway, Israel...

Apologies.

What's available to you, me and our government to make things better in Israel and Palestine?

BDS, particularly regarding products of illegal settlements, seems sensible (given experiences ending apartheid in South Africa, and - I guess - some similarities in economy and democracy).

It's hard to know what, if any tone, in diplomacy does any good.

[Paul Calf]

If I have to explain this to you there's really no hope.

Always fun to pop in guys. Zetetic was his usual intelligent self with much to add. The rest of you, not so much.

You're supposed to quit while you're ahead.

[manticore]

BDS, particularly regarding products of illegal settlements, seems sensible (given experiences ending apartheid in South Africa, and - I guess - some similarities in economy and democracy).

I do think BDS should be restricted to things associated with the settlements. Israel as a whole is bad in many ways, but I don't think it's any kind of unique evil.

[idunnosomename]

Frankie Boyle claims the BBC mysterious cut his Israel jokes out -

BBC also mysterious changed the topic of this thread

[biggytitbo]

Boyle now on a blocking frenzy on twitter because he's getting a torrent of critism for spending 10 minutes of his show on the fake anti semitism crisis in Corbyns Labour Party, whilst the BBC mysteriously cut all his jokes out attacking Israel, so he claims.

[Paul Calf]

Oh, right. I was going to watch that today, but I might not bother now.

[BlodwynPig]

Radio 4 - we look back at the deaths of Palestinians last week by asking why Jeremy Corbyn still has not sorted out the anti-semitism problem in the Labour Party and how this is affecting British Jews (the poor lambs)

[Cuellar]

If anyone is interested in how the support for Israel plays with your average right-wing American, I'd recommend looking at any reddit thread on the topic.

The upshot is: the victims are Muslims so it's actually good. Palestinians are basically ISIS so this is just another front in the West vs Islam war.

[biggytitbo]

The official account of the Israel Army here, days after they've killed dozens of unarmed protesters and murdered a medic tending to injured civilians by shooting her in the back -




Not really any words to adequately describe how wretched that is is there?

[biggytitbo]

Of course they can't let the young medic they murdered rest, they have to smear her after death too - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-protests-latest-idf-condemned-edited-video-angel-of-mercy-medic-razan-al-najjar-a8389611.html

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has been widely criticised for releasing a video in which footage of killed Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar has been edited in order to portray her as "not an angel".

[idunnosomename]

... it was a big rock.