AIBU to be fed up with all the champagne socialists?

[winniemum]

Just come back from school pick up and the conversation turned to politics for obvious reasons!
My DC is in year 6 and going to high school next year. Many of his friends are going to the local grammar school. Fine, no problem with that we didn't put him in for the GS exams.
However so many of the mums were upset that Lib Dem/ Labour had done badly in the local elections, whilst driving to school in their 4 by 4's, having driven from their £750K + houses.
It's just the contradiction, they are not prepared to spread their wealth or support the Tory policy of Grammar schools and harp on about how they all voted Lib/labour.
When I asked one mum why she was sending her DC to Grammar school if she didn't agree with anything the Tory's stood for, I got, 'Oh that was one of our most difficult decisions, we thought very long and hard about that one, but you know....' No I still don't know as she couldn't explain why that was OK.

No, even more weirdly it seems to be proud non-socialists saying psst, they are not real socialists because grammar schools or champagne or something.

The OP seems to suggest that you are a champagne socialist if you don't vote Tory and send your child to grammar school.

Yes, carry on enjoying drinking fizzy sweet alcoholic stuff but buy an Aldi bottle of prosecco and give the change from £30 to a homeless charity. Even so called experts can't tell the difference in a blind tests, which means most people part with good money to drink 'the real thing' because it makes them feel glamorous, aspirational and a bit superior, which is everything that socialism isn't.

I bloody love a bit of Aldi prosecco too. however what you describe is not socialism, donating a bit of change to charity is altruism or philanthropy and more in line with an old school centre right stance. In my socialist utopia there would be no need for homeless charities because everyone's basic needs would be taken care of through re-distribution of wealth via a robust taxation system. Once housing, education, health, public infrastructure, welfare has been paid for and everyone has a living wage or income, people can then be free to keep any they have left over and spend it on whatever they like, whether that be champagne, Range Rovers or whatever floats your boat. This actually is much more aspirational than setting up a direct debit to the RSPCA and hosting charity galas whilst paying an accountant to dodge taxes and hide money in overseas accounts. Socialism is about sharing wealth via a centralised system of distribution, not sack cloths and ashes or putting a bit in the charity tin.

Well said Faithless. I've been called a champagne socialist and worse but I truly believe we should use taxation to ensure everyone's needs are met - and a few of their wishes too. There should be no need of food banks. There should be no unemployment. Inheritance tax should be high. Corporation tax should be high. VAT should be main way to gather taxes so that clever accounting can't reduce tax bills for rich self employed and business owners. Independent schools should lose charitable status and there should be loss of tax exemption- and VAT on fees. There should be barriers to accessing top state schools from independent preps and high ranking state sixth forms should only take from state schools. None of this entry by class. Grammars should be abolished.

VAT should be main way to gather taxes so that clever accounting can't reduce tax bills for rich self employed and business owners.

But VAT is a regressive tax; it hits people on lower incomes harder as the amount they would pay in VAT is a higher % of their income.

Say VAT is 10%.
Alex earns £100 a day.
Bob earns £1000 a day.

They both buy a £50 bottle of champagne. This means they each pay £5 in tax.

£5 is 5% of Alex's wages but only 0.5% of Bob's.

What is considered a tax dodge in one place is a legitimate organisation of tax affairs in another.
For example trades including nurses get tax exemptions. So tax dodgers? Or is it regarding the amount, not the principle - so a small amount is overlooked, larger ones are considered dodging.

Its interesting how many people think your voting habits and affiliations have to change if you get a well paid job. I'm working class, theres is no such thing as upward mobility, but apparently I'm supposed to vote for the Cons if I win the lottery.
I dont think so.

Crumbs, unfortunately what you are describing would not be a successful country nor a place where the revenue contributors you seek would be drawn to live, or work.

This has been tried a few times, even in England in the 1970s, and it doesn't end well. On that occasion it ended with the UK needing IMF money to remain functioning.

In fact PP who have discussed the political spectrum are onto something here. I was surprised by the number of my Labour-voting friends who emerged as so-called "red Tories" when Corbyn took control and during the Brexit vote. Formerly vast chasms between us closed as we clung to the centre, me only slightly to their right.

The Corbyn fans I know are different. They seem to fall into two camps - long-term unemployed, or landed, wealthy people with family money and Labour roots (true champagne socialists, if you like).

The Corbyn fans I know are different. They seem to fall into two camps

The Tory fans I know also fall into two camps, intolerant racists/xenophobes or vile people who believe people with disabilities are scrounging off the state

c'est la vie

I'm always upset by labour supporters who call names and think politics is about denigrating someone else. Please disagree with the poster on corbyn supporters don't called stories racists and xenophobia. The Indian community of Birmingham had a very strong Tory vote but they are not xenophobic. Conservatives tend to believe labour supporters are too idealistic that handing all the money to the state creates massive waste and inefficiency so people are not then better off and utopia doesn't happen. Worse that incentives to work diminish.
Equally the left of centre believe if enough was taxed and paid in all the main problems would be solved. Both positions at extremism completely ignore human nature and don't work at all leaving the whole of society damaged for it. This is why we swing and will continue to do so. My problem with corbyn in just that he is extremis. His policies seem generous but they just don't work at all in the real world and some of his good ideas are lost in his utopian but dangerous dream where we demonise the holders of capital as some choose demonise other races or gays. It's simply not okay to demonise people you don't know. And it's a dangerous society where the govt seems classes of people good or bad.
Equally though lack of electable opposition is sending the stories off to the right! As a people we're trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea. For now for two mad gives they choose the one that will waste less of their own money on their stupid impractical and idealistic view points.

Sorry two mad options people choose the one that wastes less. By the way I think the Conservatives too have gone too far looking for people to blame for lack of state finances and demonised vulnerable people. They can shockingly stupid too but when people aren't sure they vote for themselves we need labour to give them a party that allows them to vote for others too.

This has been tried a few times, even in England in the 1970s, and it doesn't end well. On that occasion it ended with the UK needing IMF money to remain functioning.

Nothing to do with the oil crisis?

Finland and other Scandinavian countries are long term more socialist than Britain in the 70s and have not needed IMF assistance.

Equally though you could say the Conservatives didn't create the global finl crisis - Clintons desire to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them did - but the austerity that is left is articulated as the Tories being mean.
I think politics is complex but there is a reason why the only strong socialism left in the world are not really democracies and the people on average particularly ordinary people who can't bypass the system are poorer. Pure socialism doesn't work just as pure markets don't.

Not sure it was tried properly and failed in 1970s. As someone says look to Denmark and consider oil crisis. Let's be honest, austerity hasn't reduced the national debt its massively increased it. Public sector pay freezes have plummeted professionals into poverty whilst city increases wealth of a very few.
VAT should only be applied to non essential goods so won't hit poorest most. Their food, clothing, sanitary products and toiletries should all be tax free. Huge tax on alcohol to reduce costs associated with excess - hospital, criminal proceedings, vandalism etc.

I think politics is complex but there is a reason why the only strong socialism left in the world are not really democracies and the people on average particularly ordinary people who can't bypass the system are poorer. Pure socialism doesn't work just as pure markets don't.

The opposisite to pure capitalism is communism, not socialism. And all socialist countries are democracies.

Let's be honest, austerity hasn't reduced the national debt its massively increased it.

And what would the national debt look like if we'd had Corbyn and his friends at the helm this past 7 years? Obviously we can't know for sure, but given the experience of other countries who haven't sought to get a grip on public spending (as Corbyn wouldn't have), I think it's wishful thinking to imagine they'd have solved the problem.... I think it's far more likely we'd now be a Greece mk2.

And all socialist countries are democracies.

What are these "socialist" countries?

And what would the national debt look like if we'd had Corbyn and his friends at the helm this past 7 years?

Probably less if historical performance of the Labour Party is anything to go by.

Looking at data from the last 70 years the Conservative governments have spend more than Labour, both absolutely and on average, and that's with selling off national assets to fund their spending.

I linked a page with the data way back in the thread.

What are these "socialist" countries?

Denmark, Finland...

Socialism is not authoritarian so why wouldn't people be able to vote?

motherintraining I agree with everything you've said.

Justanotherposter you appear to have proved the point about the greater rudeness of people on the left, well done.

jellyfrizz and Crumbs the response to global crises Is one difference between us and Scandinavian countries. The Norwegians started a wealth fund with their domestic oil revenues, we pissed ours against the wall. (I think Finland needed assistance from somewhere in the 90s though).

A mixed economy is the only working model really as motherintraining said.

A mixed economy is the only working model really as motherintraining said

But socialism is mixed, same as conservativism.

Socialism is to communism as conservatism is to fascism.

They are not the same things.

If you vote Conservative I wouldn't assume you want a fascist state. I'm not sure why you assume that Labour voters would want a communist state.

(I think Finland needed assistance from somewhere in the 90s though).

Ironically this was the Finnish state bailing out the banks.

Denmark's coalition Government is led currently by its Liberal Party, which is deemed to be centre-right. There's a big difference between the social democracy of Scandinavian countries and the crypto-Marxism of Corbyn, McDonald and friends.