Re-distributive Socialism

I see that Tony Benn's will went down the normal route of inheritance tax mitigation and he left his millions to his children. Nothing wrong with that of course, I will do the same, albeit on a much smaller scale.
I, however, have not spent my life trying to redistribute everybody else's wealth so it does strike me as being a bit hypocritical.
Proof, as if any was needed, that a Class warrior's socialism usually ends where his own income begins.
 
As a matter of principal, I usually disagree with you @samain11 but I cannot take issue with your OP.

Think how many ill, starving and abused African children could be helped were Blair to distribute outwwith his family, or were 2 Jags to reduce to 1 Jag.
 
Every good capitalist is wholeheartedly involve in the redistribution of wealth - why do so many complain when somebody else does it?
 
Every good capitalist is wholeheartedly involve in the redistribution of wealth - why do so many complain when somebody else does it?
Not complaining, just pointing out that he obviously believed in different sorts of redistribution.
 
Was just about to start a new thread about this story but found this first.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html

A stalwart of the left, Tony Benn was a critic of tax avoidance measures. As an owner of expensive properties in London and the south of England, it seemed inevitable after his death in March that his family would face a hefty inheritance tax bill.

But now publication of the details of his will – coupled with records held by the Land Registry – suggests he took practical steps more than a decade ago to reduce the impact of this tax on his heirs.

Of course one could ask how did a good lefty socialist like Tony Benn accumulate £5Million in the first place.

But then scrutiny of the article suggests most of the money was/is tied up in his old house in Holland Park.

Seems a bit of a rigmarole selling it off and renting it back at market rent to avoid a lump of tax but then I suppose the numbers make it worth it.

Decade of rent liability which would have been taxed anyway so either way the Exchequer still got a lump.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Every good capitalist is wholeheartedly involve in the redistribution of wealth - why do so many complain when somebody else does it?
Because the Blair's, Kinnocks and Benns of this world are bloody hypocritical baboons!
 
Dont assume that lefties have to be poor, from disadvantaged backgrounds @geezer466 .There is an aristocracy in socalist circles, just as in other walks of life. Benn came from a well to do family background.

Arguably, it's easier to be a socialist if you're not too concerned with making ends meet.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
All property should revert to common ownership upon death. Likewise all funds of the deceased. Folks like Cameraman and Osborne inherited their wealth; which means they did absolutely nothing at all to "earn" it, but somehow they're "entitled" to their fortunes. However, folks see fit to constantly complain about JSA and benefit recipients who they see as unfairly scamming the system and not "entitled", unless they submit to slave-labour work for pennies. Are there some double standards involved there?

MsG
 
Dont assume that lefties have to be poor, from disadvantaged backgrounds @geezer466 .There is an aristocracy in socalist circles, just as in other walks of life. Benn came from a well to do family background.

Arguably, it's easier to be a socialist if you're not too concerned with making ends meet.
So true, lefties wish to redistribute taxpayers money but like to hang on to their own, just look at Kinnock, Blair and the rest of em, they aren't living in a council house are they, that's only for the little people.
 
The wealth of society is being redistributed in the wrong direction currently. Perhaps just "slowing it down slightly" without resorting to killing to monarchy and the top 2 % may work towards a happier society with less daily mail paranoia ignorance and hate
 
All property should revert to common ownership upon death. Likewise all funds of the deceased. Folks like Cameraman and Osborne inherited their wealth; which means they did absolutely nothing at all to "earn" it, but somehow they're "entitled" to their fortunes. However, folks see fit to constantly complain about JSA and benefit recipients who they see as unfairly scamming the system and not "entitled", unless they submit to slave-labour work for pennies. Are there some double standards involved there?

MsG
Why should all property revert to common ownership - whatever that is?
By your definition, those who inherited their wealth did nothing to earn it (although their families before them did). And yet you would give it all to those who did nothing to earn it AND whose predecessors also did nothing to earn it.

That is fairer...how, exactly?
 
All property should revert to common ownership upon death. Likewise all funds of the deceased. Folks like Cameraman and Osborne inherited their wealth; which means they did absolutely nothing at all to "earn" it, but somehow they're "entitled" to their fortunes. However, folks see fit to constantly complain about JSA and benefit recipients who they see as unfairly scamming the system and not "entitled", unless they submit to slave-labour work for pennies. Are there some double standards involved there?

MsG

The problem with discussions of this sort is that the mad polarised loons come out and the grey areas with possible graduated solutions are lost in the ridicule
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
"Property is theft" don't you know. Allegedly.

_____
* Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
 
Dont assume that lefties have to be poor, from disadvantaged backgrounds @geezer466 .There is an aristocracy in socalist circles, just as in other walks of life. Benn came from a well to do family background.

Arguably, it's easier to be a socialist if you're not too concerned with making ends meet.

Well Tony Benn did stand to inherit a peerage which he fukced off...
 
Small flaw in the plan. As soon as the government looks like passing a law to steal people's assets at point of death people will just leave the country. Taking those assets with them.
 
Small flaw in the plan. As soon as the government looks like passing a law to steal people's assets at point of death people will just leave the country. Taking those assets with them.
Ahhh, but if all countries in the world agree to agree on the same policy - then there's no where left to hide.

All we need to do, is to have global agreement on the matter. Shouldn't be too difficult. Perhaps the UN could broker something effective?


Assuming that people are not permitted to travel in Branson's Space Tour rocket if close to death.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Why should all property revert to common ownership - whatever that is?
By your definition, those who inherited their wealth did nothing to earn it (although their families before them did). And yet you would give it all to those who did nothing to earn it AND whose predecessors also did nothing to earn it.

That is fairer...how, exactly?
One of the main problems facing society today is the vast inequality engendered by the Capitalist system. The stock solution used at the moment is ever more mindless, authoritarian discipline. But the question then becomes: how long can you subject a well-educated population to such measures before there’s a general outcry and some serious backlash? If all property reverted to common ownership after death, it would free up much-needed accommodation for ordinary citizens and, in time, make the selfish accumulation of property relatively uninteresting (just as it was in the GDR, where only three percent of the population owned their properties outright). That would, again with time, lead to a levelling of society with regard to property in general.

If any wealth accumulated by the deceased was also returned to common (public) ownership, it means that just about everyone would start off on a equal footing. Combined with the abolition of public (private) schools, we could, in time, build up a largely egalitarian society in which everyone would feel welcome and accepted for their human characteristics, and not because they happen to have loads of money.
The problem with discussions of this sort is that the mad polarised loons come out and the grey areas with possible graduated solutions are lost in the ridicule
I agree. Just about everyone on ARRSE knows my political (Socialist) standpoint by now, so I won’t reiterate it here. What happens is that (as you rightly state) the argument then becomes polarised and inevitably bogs down – with both sides then restating opinions.

I believe it would be much more fruitful if we forego the “Capitalist versus Socialist”, “Left versus Right” pointlessness and instead attempt to discuss “Old versus New”, in the sense that comrades make suggestions as to how the “old” and now entirely discredited present system can/could be replaced with a (hopefully) better “new” system that perhaps combines elements of both Socialism and Capitalism leading to a more just, peaceful and equitable society . Personally, I believe that what we have now is only going to lead to ever more unrest until it can’t be contained. Surely it’s much better to contemplate what we could do to improve things (even at this comparatively late stage) than to wait until the whole thing explodes?

MsG
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Small flaw in the plan. As soon as the government looks like passing a law to steal people's assets at point of death people will just leave the country. Taking those assets with them.
That would be excellent! Those who would be leaving would be the very rich, who don’t produce anything useful anyway. They’d then not be using any national resources that they try their hardest to avoid paying for. It would also free up a lot of accommodation for normal citizens. A win-win situation! It seems to me to be a very perverse situation when countries compete to have the most millionaires/billionaires in their populations.

MsG
 

Latest Threads

Top