Current Affairs War on Socialism

[tsubaki]

So the likes of Branson, Dyson etc have never created jobs? Either directly or indirectly? I think you’re a bit lost here hun.

I think its more likely that you are a bit lost here, given that he said "the vast majority of jobs are not created by billionaires", and not "billionaires do not create / have never created directly or indirectly jobs".

 

[zzr45]

I think its more likely that you are a bit lost here, given that he said "the vast majority of jobs are not created by billionaires", and not "billionaires do not create / have never created directly or indirectly jobs".

No he didn’t, he said

Well if you can point me to the billionaires who create more jobs than anything else that would be just swell sweetheart xxx

So err, there’s two examples of billionaires who have created jobs. This isn’t Russia, people do not get huge amounts of money through cronyism. People become billionaires through investing their own capital which in turn helps create opportunities for others.

The top 1% of earners in this country pay 25% of the tax in this country, so to take the cavalier attitude from the original article that billionaires can just do one and we’d all be just fine is demented at best.

Yes, people swindle the system and pay less than they should, but again that isn’t a thing locked into the ‘elite’. Someone doing cash in hand work is essentially no better than a millionaire with ‘creative’ accountants, but it’s interesting to see that they are ignored so Socialists can, as ever, make enemies of a very small group. Tax avoidance, unlike fox hunting, is an activity enjoyed by every class in the U.K.

So, they are pretty important in terms of the overall economy and our taxation.

Yes, they can afford to make bigger donations to political parties than you or I can. Does that make them more powerful? Probably, it’s the nature of living in a resource based economy. Again, I question what they are actually doing. Many of the things shrieked about aren’t actually happening. The NHS is still a public body and hasn’t been sold to the highest bidder, but it makes wonderful copy to pretend it has been. And rather than ask complex questions it’s better to broad brush and claim the government is underfunding it so they can sell it off, because that’s a truth far easier to understand.

So, why exactly, using the strained simile from the OP, are billionaires ‘hungry wolves’ we should be fighting off?

 

[tsubaki]

No he didn’t

Yes, he did - it is right up there in post #27, and it was repeated in your post #28 when you quoted him.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well if you can point me to the billionaires who create more jobs than anything else that would be just swell sweetheart xxx

So the likes of Branson, Dyson etc have never created jobs? Either directly or indirectly? I think you’re a bit lost here hun.

Fellas, pack it in hey? You're both smart enough to debate without calling each other sweetheart and hun.

 

[ClausThomsen]

No he didn’t, he said

So err, there’s two examples of billionaires who have created jobs. This isn’t Russia, people do not get huge amounts of money through cronyism. People become billionaires through investing their own capital which in turn helps create opportunities for others.

The top 1% of earners in this country pay 25% of the tax in this country, so to take the cavalier attitude from the original article that billionaires can just do one and we’d all be just fine is demented at best.

Yes, people swindle the system and pay less than they should, but again that isn’t a thing locked into the ‘elite’. Someone doing cash in hand work is essentially no better than a millionaire with ‘creative’ accountants, but it’s interesting to see that they are ignored so Socialists can, as ever, make enemies of a very small group. Tax avoidance, unlike fox hunting, is an activity enjoyed by every class in the U.K.

So, they are pretty important in terms of the overall economy and our taxation.

Yes, they can afford to make bigger donations to political parties than you or I can. Does that make them more powerful? Probably, it’s the nature of living in a resource based economy. Again, I question what they are actually doing. Many of the things shrieked about aren’t actually happening. The NHS is still a public body and hasn’t been sold to the highest bidder, but it makes wonderful copy to pretend it has been. And rather than ask complex questions it’s better to broad brush and claim the government is underfunding it so they can sell it off, because that’s a truth far easier to understand.

So, why exactly, using the strained simile from the OP, are billionaires ‘hungry wolves’ we should be fighting off?

It's quite true that the NHS is a public body (also creating more jobs in the UK than any billionaire) but it is also true that increasing parts of it have been outsourced to the private sector over the last few years. NHS Trusts are having to bid against private firms such as Virgin Care for contracts involving end-of-life care, community care and other health services. And if you've ever had the misfortune to work for these private care firms then you'll fully understand that there is absolutely no desire from the owners to put service users anywhere near the top of the priority list.

What is it about public health care that appeals to billionaires? They don't use it but lots of people do and putting this essential work into the hands of billionaire owners leads to a race to the bottom as the private sector is interested only in maximising profit with minimum contractual obligations. The added bonus is NHS trusts losing out on vital income, become further underfunded and have to further tighten their belt or finance part of that shortfall with things like car park charges - often paid by those with the least resources to do so.

You're quite right about the hungry wolves simile not working. These wolves are well fed but ruthless and greedy and that's why they need to be fought off.

And I'd still be interested in hearing who the billionaires are who create more jobs than any other group.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's quite true that the NHS is a public body (also creating more jobs in the UK than any billionaire) but it is also true that increasing parts of it have been outsourced to the private sector over the last few years. NHS Trusts are having to bid against private firms such as Virgin Care for contracts involving end-of-life care, community care and other health services. And if you've ever had the misfortune to work for these private care firms then you'll fully understand that there is absolutely no desire from the owners to put service users anywhere near the top of the priority list.

Sadly I'm not sure it is true of NHS people a lot of the time. The wife's bosses don't care about her patients at all.

 

[ClausThomsen]

So the likes of Branson, Dyson etc have never created jobs? Either directly or indirectly? I think you’re a bit lost here hun.

Branson has created jobs - Virgin stores and the like are proof of that and well done to him for that. But moves into health care by firms such as the Virgin group are very dangerous and lead directly to overall job losses - worse conditions, less full time work etc as profits are put above all else.
Other billionaires such as Sir Philip Green also follow a similar line - They initially create jobs but once super wealthy it's all about acquiring and streamlining other businesses. Job losses all round on massive scales with tax avoidance and pension fund fun all round.

 

[ClausThomsen]

Sadly I'm not sure it is true of NHS people a lot of the time. The wife's bosses don't care about her patients at all.

A result of a management culture shift completely isolated from the reality of front-line health care provision as the NHS now needs to justify it's worth by competing with the private sector.

A ridiculous state of affairs for a public health service.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

A result of a management culture shift completely isolated from the reality of front-line health care provision as the NHS now needs to justify it's worth by competing with the private sector.

A ridiculous state of affairs for a public health service.

It's a cop out to blame the private sector for it imo. The vast majority of managers in the NHS are former doctors and nurses. Yes, the targets are ridiculous, but it's not at all helpful that we give the NHS a free pass as 'heroes working in difficult circumstances'. It allows them to get away with a bewildering amount of incompetence that we wouldn't accept in the private sector.

 

[zzr45]

Branson has created jobs - Virgin stores and the like are proof of that and well done to him for that. But moves into health care by firms such as the Virgin group are very dangerous and lead directly to overall job losses - worse conditions, less full time work etc as profits are put above all else.
Other billionaires such as Sir Philip Green also follow a similar line - They initially create jobs but once super wealthy it's all about acquiring and streamlining other businesses. Job losses all round on massive scales with tax avoidance and pension fund fun all round.

Totally agree that outsourcing parts of the NHS is a race to the bottom, the problem isn’t with the fact that companies like Virgin are bidding for them. The problem lies in that in many cases the people overseeing the procurement processes are completely inept and aren’t really judging bids in reality. What is happening is contracts are being awarded to the lowest bidder, who realistically can’t provide the services they claim at the costs they quote. That either results in sub-standard services, or contracts being handed back for the NHS to sort. The old adage buy cheap, buy twice springs to mind. The fault lies at the feet of those approving these outsourcing contracts.

In terms of Green acquiring other businesses in order to cherry pick, it’s slightly naive to think the businesses that are acquired are healthy and functional. Most are on deaths door, as was the case with BHS. Sadly, these businesses have reached the end of their lifecycle, people have to lose their jobs and go on to be productive in other roles that help the economy prosper. Predatory yes, but needed.

Totally agree that tax avoidance is a problem, but again it happens at all levels. It’s something that needs sorting out, not just in this country, but globally. The problem is that governments can’t make head nor tail of where to start.

Same with pensions, realistically it’s theft. No company should be able to defer payments, it’s promised to pay x into the pot when a payslip is issued and it should do.

And I’ve not claimed that we are all employed thanks to billionaires, but again, to get rid of them as the OP suggested just isn’t feasible without massive impacts on us all.

 

[magicjuan]

No he didn’t, he said

So err, there’s two examples of billionaires who have created jobs. This isn’t Russia, people do not get huge amounts of money through cronyism. People become billionaires through investing their own capital which in turn helps create opportunities for others.

The top 1% of earners in this country pay 25% of the tax in this country, so to take the cavalier attitude from the original article that billionaires can just do one and we’d all be just fine is demented at best.

Yes, people swindle the system and pay less than they should, but again that isn’t a thing locked into the ‘elite’. Someone doing cash in hand work is essentially no better than a millionaire with ‘creative’ accountants, but it’s interesting to see that they are ignored so Socialists can, as ever, make enemies of a very small group. Tax avoidance, unlike fox hunting, is an activity enjoyed by every class in the U.K.

So, they are pretty important in terms of the overall economy and our taxation.

Yes, they can afford to make bigger donations to political parties than you or I can. Does that make them more powerful? Probably, it’s the nature of living in a resource based economy. Again, I question what they are actually doing. Many of the things shrieked about aren’t actually happening. The NHS is still a public body and hasn’t been sold to the highest bidder, but it makes wonderful copy to pretend it has been. And rather than ask complex questions it’s better to broad brush and claim the government is underfunding it so they can sell it off, because that’s a truth far easier to understand.

So, why exactly, using the strained simile from the OP, are billionaires ‘hungry wolves’ we should be fighting off?

That first paragraph, not exactly true is it?

 

[ClausThomsen]

It's a cop out to blame the private sector for it imo. The vast majority of managers in the NHS are former doctors and nurses. Yes, the targets are ridiculous, but it's not at all helpful that we give the NHS a free pass as 'heroes working in difficult circumstances'. It allows them to get away with a bewildering amount of incompetence that we wouldn't accept in the private sector.

I agree that the free pass is not at all beneficial but outsourcing essential services to the private sector does not lead to a better front line service. A muddled patchwork of private and public ownership based on undercutting and who you know seems to deliver all the flaws and few of the benefits of either.

The global financial meltdown and the Carillion debacle suggest that those in power and making these big decisions are more than happy to accept a bewildering amount of incompetence and lies when doling out public money to aid the private sector.

In terms of Green acquiring other businesses in order to cherry pick, it’s slightly naive to think the businesses that are acquired are healthy and functional. Most are on deaths door, as was the case with BHS. Sadly, these businesses have reached the end of their lifecycle, people have to lose their jobs and go on to be productive in other roles that help the economy prosper. Predatory yes, but needed.

BHS was making healthy profits when acquired. It wasn't at it's peak but was still a profitable concern. There's no doubt that it was ultimately not going to survive given the changes in high street shopping but Green and his wife took a lot of money out of that company with their Arcadia parent group (rents, admin fees etc) and ultimately profited despite selling for £1. All this exacerbated the pension fund deficit and those at the bottom of the pile were out of pocket while Green piled more dough on the pile. Stripping peoples pension fund does nothing to help the economy.

 

[zzr45]

That first paragraph, not exactly true is it?

Are you suggesting cronyism is a problem in this country?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree that the free pass is not at all beneficial but outsourcing essential services to the private sector does not lead to a better front line service. A muddled patchwork of private and public ownership based on undercutting and who you know seems to deliver all the flaws and few of the benefits of either.

The global financial meltdown and the Carillion debacle suggest that those in power and making these big decisions are more than happy to accept a bewildering amount of incompetence and lies when doling out public money to aid the private sector.

As has been said, I'd be inclined to think those actually procuring things are clueless as well. If you've ever had the pleasure of going through public sector procurement you'll appreciate just how dysfunctional it is. It would be much easier to accept if the barriers placed are designed to increase quality, but a lot of the time they're not. In many ways, that's why the likes of Capita and Carillion sprung up because they were so good at playing the system.

I don't think many would argue that society is generally fine with criticising your Virgin Health's of the world, but flaws in the NHS itself tend to be brushed off as the fault of Jeremy Hunt, or the private sector or generally anyone but the people actually working in the NHS. I'm not saying they're bad people, and indeed I wouldn't say people in Virgin are bad people either tbh, but we've got to be comfortable saying that they need to improve.

I mean I read a study the other day essentially saying how poor value for money management consultants are for the NHS. If you're of a certain persuasion you'll no doubt wave your first, cuss the swines for ripping us off and so on, and that's fine. All I ask is that you show a similar willingness to do likewise to public sector folk when it's warranted. I mean you go into any health facility in the country, and chances are stress levels will be through the roof, leading not only to more sick leave (or permanent departures) but also poorer quality decisions. It's easy to pass that off as being down to insufficient money or whatever, but that overlooks the huge impact bad management has.

It's more complex than public = good, private = bad.

 

[zzr45]

I agree that the free pass is not at all beneficial but outsourcing essential services to the private sector does not lead to a better front line service. A muddled patchwork of private and public ownership based on undercutting and who you know seems to deliver all the flaws and few of the benefits of either.

The global financial meltdown and the Carillion debacle suggest that those in power and making these big decisions are more than happy to accept a bewildering amount of incompetence and lies when doling out public money to aid the private sector.



BHS was making healthy profits when acquired. It wasn't at it's peak but was still a profitable concern. There's no doubt that it was ultimately not going to survive given the changes in high street shopping but Green and his wife took a lot of money out of that company with their Arcadia parent group (rents, admin fees etc) and ultimately profited despite selling for £1. All this exacerbated the pension fund deficit and those at the bottom of the pile were out of pocket while Green piled more dough on the pile. Stripping peoples pension fund does nothing to help the economy.

Completely agree with that. I’m not too sure why you’ve framed it like I’m defending the way taxation is handled in this country, or that saying that taking from pension pots is acceptable.