Unconditionally Basic Salary for everybody.

[G4Z]

And where there is no money there is starvation.

Just look at places where money is worthless, like Zimbabwe for example or Germany in the 1920's.

[sleepyhead]

And where there is no money there is starvation.

Just look at places where money is worthless, like Zimbabwe for example or Germany in the 1920's.

Money is there - just very devalued through huge inflation. ie more money was printed devaluing it thereby crippling the country who is trying to pay off debts.

[Mousemat]

Unfortunately development and improvement requires incentive. Most technological and medical advancements have had private funding either through direct investment or through University Alumni donations.

Without someone with enough spare cash to gamble on an investment turning into a payoff, we wouldn't be able to reap the rewards of less labour intensive lifestyles and increased life expectancies. After the initial profiteering is out of the way, the rest of us have access to cheaper/improved goods and services…although this may take many years.

Although, it would be nice to think that these advancements would have still happened through government funding, it's more likely that bureaucracy and politics would have deemed a large number of them to be too risky to spend public money on.

EDIT: I'm aware that someone may point out the fact that people in third world countries don't yet have access to many of these improvements. It has to be noted that we have linked economies and governments, not merged ones. As I said these advancements may take many years to benefit people on a wider scale.

[TheAnimus]

money = division/class = rich/poor = poverty.

In my eyes where there is money there is poverty.

LOGIC FAIL.

[PeteSmith]

I actually begrudge the time i just spent reading the initial post of this thread.

[kalniel]

In my eyes where there is money there is poverty.

I suppose the alternative is goods/services without any actual or promissory trade value. But that's usually called slavery.

[TheAnimus]

Yes, the benevolent rich folk argument. Are you seriously going to defend a system whereby the welfare of people in Pakistan is dependent on excessive working class spending in Northern England?

And are you honestly seeking to defend Beckham's untold personal riches in the face of millions of destitute people barely surviving?

Yes. You know how i can easily? Lets look at you? In the time you spent writing these silly posts, you could of earnt enough money to pay for aids drugs for some African photogenic orphans.

You didn't. You know what i'm also going to bet you don't survive on the very minimum you need to nourish yourself.

If you don't give a toss about them, why should he? When as a by product of silly spending on crap you don't need employment can be provided to allow some that are able to work to live.

Here is what troubles me about the argument you are making: you are not a capitalist. The greatest deceit of capitalism is fooling people that they are, or have a chance to be, part of the capitalist elite. You are not, and neither am I. We are wage slaves, forced to work ridiculously low-paying jobs by the aforementioned "market conditions". Slavery used to be part of market conditions too once upon a time. But then the oppressive government went and ruined that bit of industry. The same arguments were put forward: how could we ever survive without slaves doing the work? You'd bankrupt the country!

Err dude, first off, i work for a hedge fund. (am i evil?)

Now i can tell you that you too can work your way up, bill gates, richard brandson, alan sugar etc?

You seem to imagine that every multimillionaire is somehow deserving of it, rather than profiting from blind luck. And then you compound this belief that they "earnt" their money with the expectation that wealth is best placed to benefit the world in their hands. What evidence do you have for that?

Forgive me, but i only know one billionare, and only about 5 proper multimillionaires (ie £10M+ of liquid assets), so i'll be the first to admit my sample size isn't completely conclusive, but all of them did/do work for it, in ways i'm guessing you don't see or understand. Yes they got lucky, there but for the grace of god you or i could of been born in some hell hole like Darfur or Cardif, and yes it would of been very unlikely for them to have 'made it' with the opportunities presented there. But like anyone playing cards you have to be given a good hand and know how to make use of it, but thats not to say people can't do well with a 'bad' hand!

States at least come with some sort of accountability and processes for redress. Putting great wealth and power into private hands is simply not a good idea.

Yes, this is why a private company has to account for ALL expeneses, if i have a bottle of water from my hotel room, i'll have to keep the recipt, and prove it was a genuine expense (otherwise i'd be rightly taxed on it). MPs on the other hand decided that they where trust worthy, so they don't have too. To be honest out of your whole argument (which is worthy of a 17 year old girl smoking pot under her che guevara poster, talking about wanting to give the whole world a great big hug) this is the notion i find most laughable, capitalisim provides great clarity and accountability, you have to be board level and have friends in government to not hit the skids when you mess up, you are out with pratically nothing (enelss you negociated well in your contract!). MPs on the other hand pass laws which don't apply to them, because they claim they are trust worthy, and have a total do as i say, not as a i do principle. God they annoy me.

[G4Z]

Unfortunately development and improvement requires incentive. Most technological and medical advancements have had private funding either through direct investment or through University Alumni donations.

Without someone with enough spare cash to gamble on an investment turning into a payoff, we wouldn't be able to reap the rewards of less labour intensive lifestyles and increased life expectancies. After the initial profiteering is out of the way, the rest of us have access to cheaper/improved goods and services…although this may take many years.

Although, it would be nice to think that these advancements would have still happened through government funding, it's more likely that bureaucracy and politics would have deemed a large number of them to be too risky to spend public money on.

EDIT: I'm aware that someone may point out the fact that people in third world countries don't yet have access to many of these improvements. It has to be noted that we have linked economies and governments, not merged ones. As I said these advancements may take many years to benefit people on a wider scale.

I do not disagree with any of what you have said, I do however think it is worth considering the fact that very few rich people actualy come up with these ideas/inventions/advances themselves. We would still have the intellectual talent, the issue I think is how to incentivise that talent and ensure that the good ideas are developed.

[educatedfool]

Alot of the arguements people are using are similar to the ones many American's use against having a public healthcare system, even though they pay more in taxes for their healthcare and we do for ours, yet ours is free and they need insurance.

If the whole system was cleaned up this could work, obviously there are problems, such as those shouting communism like they get all their information from 1950's American cartoons.

[kalniel]

yet ours is free and they need insurance.

I hardly call £100billion a year 'free'. All of that money comes from the tax payer.

[educatedfool]

I hardly call £100billion a year 'free'. All of that money comes from the tax payer.

I meant outside of taxes.

[TheAnimus]

Alot of the arguements people are using are similar to the ones many American's use against having a public healthcare system, even though they pay more in taxes for their healthcare and we do for ours, yet ours is free and they need insurance.

Woo, what?

How much tax are they paying? I think you've got your figures more wrong than a micheal moore film.

Or is that including insurance payments too, because many people in the UK find the NHS too slow at getting around to do even basic X-Rays that they have private health care too.

The yanks on the other hand do not have a 40% tax, then student loan, then benefits (ie my gym membership etc) then as if its not bad enough the NHS is to damn slow to treat you, my employer has to pay yet more money for insurance, which is a taxable benefit, so i get taxed because my employer can't afford to wait for me to be treated by the NHS should something happen to me!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I hardly call £100billion a year 'free'. All of that money comes from the tax payer.

Imagine having to pay that much in taxes and private healthcare costs? Many people here don't realise how lucky we are to have a healthcare system which benefits everyone irrespective of their wealth. The same goes for our education and welfare systems.

[G4Z]

Animus, I was kind of getting where you were coming from but then I thought about what a hedge fund really is and really... your mates did not 'earn' it. Don't get me wrong, I realise they might have done 60 hour weeks or whatever, but then there are doctors and nurses in this country who do that and don't get those kind of insane rewards.

No they gambled and won, that's what a hedge fund is when you get down to it. they gambled other peoples money and got paid well when everything was good. That is not production imo, that is not a valuable service and that is not contributing anything to this society. I realise we need banks and investors before you accuse me of being naive, I think there is certainly a place for responsible lending and even making a profit from it (shock horror!).

For the record, my landlord is a millionaire, he ownes several businesses and I see him stood in his newsagents working behind the tills on a regular basis. See when it comes down to it, there are some ways of making money worthy of respect and then there are other ways which are not such as gambling or inheriting.

[transylvanic]

If you don't give a toss about them, why should he?

I'll grant you, he has no reason to. And in his position, I would not feel compelled to spend my money on others, no matter how large my personal wealth. But that is the very reason why laws should exist to prevent people from reaching those positions. Because we cannot rely on benevolent individuals helping the world.

Now i can tell you that you too can work your way up, bill gates, richard brandson, alan sugar etc?

Alan "I lied on my CV" Sugar? That one? I am not saying that hard work should go unrewarded, not by any means. Work is unpleasant and people should be properly compensated for it. But while you spout off about the many virtues of the ridiculously overcompensated western billionaires, you spare no thought for the people in the eastern world who are working their butts off day and night and getting a fraction of what their effort is worth.

Screw this nonsense about 'the market will regulate itself,' the banking market didnt exactly bowl us over with that one, did it? People should get fair compensation for expending effort. Right now, the guys at the top are getting ridiculously overpaid while the shmoes at the bottom are getting trampled.

And what about Paris Hilton? What about Elizabeth Windsor? What merit do they have to deserve such wealth? What effort did they expend that is being recompensed in such splendid fashion?

At any rate, you have also made the mistake of believing I am arguing from a perspective of self-interest. I too happen to work in a hedge fund. But until a hedge fund is managing my money, I am not a capitalist, I am merely a capitalist's puppet. I do not argue for fairer laws and greater egalitarianism to pull my own self up, I do so out of a desire to see people evolve beyond the basic urges to acquire power and things.

Yes, this is why a private company has to account for ALL expeneses

Accounting and accountability are not identical concepts. Therefore I don't need to address this point.

[kalniel]

Imagine having to pay that much in taxes and private healthcare costs? Many people here don't realise how lucky we are to have a healthcare system which benefits everyone irrespective of their wealth. The same goes for our education and welfare systems.

Oh I agree we're incredibly lucky (thanks, Labour), but it still has to be paid for with money so I'm not sure what point it's being used to make.