AIBU that socialists should just implement their ideas outside of government?

[pinksauce]

Just that really – there are millions of people who voted Labour; but also millions who didn’t and don’t want anything to do with their policies. Why do socialists desire to impose their views?

Instead, why don’t all the millions who vote Labour get together and create a pooling of resources independent of the state? Each person who lines up with this philosophy could pay a high percentage of their wealth into a central fund and build hospitals, schools and subsidise higher wages without being in government..

Nothing is stopping people pooling their resources and paying for each other, offering enhanced benefits to their members, taking on debts for each other, transferring income as deemed appropriate – but they don’t seem to do it voluntarily, despite indicating they want to live in such a society. If it worked well, it may even attract more people.

Or, do people who believe in socialist ideals only want to do it if they can impose their will on those who don’t wish to be part of such a scheme?

Those who want to tax the rich aren’t rich. Otherwise they’d be a lot less keen on the idea of taxing the rich.

'twas the night before Christmas and, as always, the spirit of Christmas Past turned up in the guise of Mrs Thatcher, as did those ever-present starving child orphans, Hunger and Want. "Just checking", said the spirit, "glad to see you're still here, without you my memory would die, you idle, lazy pair. Keep it up. " she vanished in a mist of hair spray and gin as the spirit of Christmas Present materialised. "I say, you pair of bloody slackers still hanging around?" he bawled, rugby tackling the pair to the ordurous gutter " I've got 60,000 nurses and a hundred new hospitals and a moon in a balloon for both of you. Stop snivelling , get up and follow me. We're heading North." They slowly rose to their feet and thought "why not? How much worse could it get?" They set off following the spirit . In the background, the spirit of Christmas Yet to Come eyed them malevolently, as he lounged on a Commons bench, fingering his rosary with one hand and an abacus with the other, muttering 'to them that have, more shall be given'. Great was it in those times to be alive. Merry Christmas everyone.

why should the owners/shareholders/investors of businesses reap the additional profits of a healthier and more productive and less depressed and stressed workforce without having to pay a penny in to the socialist structures that created this? OP wants the rich to be able to freeload and exploit the working people without acknowledging that the source of the wealth and prosperity of any rich person derives ultimately from someone else's hard work, and that someone else is a real and valid human being with rights and dignity.

the rich do not live in a special separate enclave independently of the poor. the poor may be hidden from their sight but everything is interdependent.

totally agree with WorldsOnFire that the majority of Labour voters were expecting to gain from the system, not fund it.

I think the majority wanted more people to have the opportunity to find the system. At the moment, inequality keeps too many people out of work or out of other tasks that improve society.

The reality is that we would find a system alone which those who "fall" from the upper echelons of society would benefit from without putting in the work. So if someone relatively wealthy became chronically ill and could no longer afford treatment like it happens in the US, they would then come and access free care from the systems that the socialists set up. Of course only until they could get back to where they were and they'd forget about the people who helped them when they needed it.

There was a good few people including celebrities who shared social media posts saying that they'd happily pay an extra 20 quid or whatever a month to have better services. Many of those people didnt earn any where near 80k

Anyway vast number of socialists people (corrected that for you) are already doing their stuff, food banks and all the other sweeping up stuff that there is a need for.

@Gail

At the moment, inequality keeps too many people out of work or out of other tasks that improve society.

But this isn’t fixable even under labour/socialism. There are significantly more people than jobs, and many whose skills and qualifications belong in minimum wage jobs, believe they’re beneath them so would rather remain reliant on UC.
For example the NHS are desperate for cleaners and carers as before Brexit many of these roles were filled by foreign workers. However, unemployed brits don’t want those jobs, because they’re hard, grotty and not well paid. Yes there is an element of ‘inequality’ but there is also a huge issue with people being complacent and expecting far too much.

If someone relatively wealthy became chronically ill and could no longer afford treatment like it happens in the US, they would then come and access free care from the systems that the socialists set up. Of course only until they could get back to where they were and they'd forget about the people who helped them when they needed it.

^ But these people pay the taxes that fund the schools/ NHS despite many not using them. Nobody can ‘opt out’ of tax and NI so despite paying for private schooling and healthcare these wealthy people are still paying into the current ‘socialist provisions’ - so have every right to use them as a safety net as and when needed without having to be ‘grateful’ for it.
Following your logic the people who actually should ‘remember who helped them’ are those who don’t pay tax/Ni/contribute very little and feel entitled to complain that the facilities they are provided for free.
These people are also much more likely to use the socialist system as it was designed to be used, as a safety net ‘until they could get back to where they were’ - that’s not how the majority of other use it, which is why the system is broken and ‘wealthy/ no UC claimants’ don’t like it.

Nobody wants to see anybody suffer, but there is a dependency and entitlement to UC in this country that goes far beyond ‘a social safety net’.

A lot of people who voted labour aren't socialists. I'm slightly left of centre and have traditionally voted Lib Dem but wanted to vote tactically to make sure our fantastic Labour MP kept his seat.

I believe pure capitalism doesn't work, and that society functions better with a good safety net and good public services (especially well funded schools and health services, plus good public transport). We are a high earning family and would happily have paid the extra tax to ensure that. We already pay more to charity (including PTA and hospital charities) than the extra tax we would have paid under Labour and we're going to increase our charity payments in the new year.

For example the NHS are desperate for cleaners and carers as before Brexit many of these roles were filled by foreign workers. However, unemployed brits don’t want those jobs, because they’re hard, grotty and not well paid.

The NHS don't employ cleaners. Private agencies who subcontract to the NHS employ cleaners. You're right that many people see taking a caring job where you are paid pennies for the time you are with a client but not for travelling inbetween as a joke. Why would you spend energy, money and time away from your family knowing that you could spend most of your working day travelling and will not be paid for that time?

The idea that there are lots of people who do not use the NHS because they "go private" is a myth. Most people in that position with chronic illnesses take up their entitlement to NHS services, often fighting their way into getting more than the average NHS user and then top up with private care to enhance their treatment.

The owner of my nursery for instance is a millionaire for sure but not a multi millionaire. She has 3 nurseries, a care home and some buy-to-lets. Kids are in private school, big house in Essex etc. She's done well. What she does when she needs to see a specialist is to go private for a diagnosis and then that means the NHS doctors do not have to do all the normal investigations. She then has any treatment or operation on the NHS. This cuts down the time until she needs to get on the surgery list. So she mixes the 2 but still gets what someone else with her problem would get on the NHS. She isn't freeing up NHS services much at all, she is just enhancing her healthcare by paying for a bit of it privately. I dont think that is wrong,she pays NI and tax but the idea that rich people help the NHS by going private instead isn't true.

Improved services such as education and healthcare would mean that more people access work and pay taxes. It is as simple as that. Ensuring that people stay sick (mentally and physically) and have crap education is pretty much guaranteeing that there will be an underclass reliant on welfare.

Isn’t that what co-operatives are though? And historically those people in co-operatives have come together to build structures and institutions,

That history is tied in very closely with the development of the labour movement and socialism in the UK, and that movement led to the development of many social welfare institutions like the NHS. So, historically, socialists have done that and did that prior to the founding of state institutions.

So things like the Co-op and Benenden healthcare, plus a lot of places like housing associations and health food suppliers are examples of current co-operative organisations.

And to a certain extent unions- they club together to provide legal support etc. Also mutual societies like building societies (think Nationwide is the only properly mutual building society left).

Co-operative/mutual sector used to be bigger/more visible than it is now, but it’s been really influential on the shape of British Society for the last couple of hundred years.

The Rochdale Pioneers (who founded the Co-op) are really interesting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Society_of_Equitable_Pioneers

A lot of Labour MPs stand for both the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party. Those two parties have had an electoral alliance since 1927. So a lot of social welfare institutions like the NHS which grew out of the NHS have their intellectual roots in the co-operative movement.

Here’s a report of the size and shape of Co-operatives in the UK economy. The gist from 2019 report is:
*overall turnover £37.7 billion

• number of co-operative organisations is 7,215
• they employ nearly 235, 000 people
• there are 13.7 people who are members of co-ops
• The top three most co-operative places are in the Scottish Isles, and the most co-operative region is the north east
• new co-operative businesses have a higher survival rate than companies- with almost three out of four co-op start-ups (72%) still flourishing after the difficult first five years of existence compared to 43% of companies

Unions are essentially a version of this. You pay in to a system and get various benefits, including legal ones. To an extent, paying into any sort of insurance is a form of socialism as you’re paying to distribute risk of a group as a whole.

why should the owners/shareholders/investors of businesses reap the additional profits of a healthier and more productive and less depressed and stressed workforce without having to pay a penny in to the socialist structures that created this?

And that's before you even get into the fact that working people having their income topped up by the state is actually a benefit to their employers. It means they get away with paying them less because the state picks up the bill. It is really the employers being subsidised.

@GailCindy

You’re missing the point by arguing semantics. There are jobs out there many of which are going unfilled because people don’t like the pay/conditions. That can be fixed quite easily without a socialist agenda, but it’s not dealt with.
50 years ago any job would have been better than no job but now, as you say, there are plenty of jobs people won’t take because it’s ‘not worth it’ and they get more claiming UC.

Maybe we should focus on THAT rather than Increasing taxes for high earners and imply they’re ‘ungrateful’ and not thinking of the ‘greater good’.

Are higher taxes and a better education system going to mean that jobs are better regulated and workers are not taken advantage of? No.
If we fund schools to an amazing level so that every child excels, are any of them going to be more inclined to work the crappy unskilled jobs that will still exist and need doing? No.
Society works because there are significantly different levels, some people need to work minimum wage jobs whilst others are brain surgeons...because we need both retail workers and Brain surgeons for the U.K. to function.

‘Socialism’ is about ‘nobody being dirt poor’ not ‘everybody being rich or equal’ < that’s communism.
Healthcare and education are free in the U.K, benefits are paid to those who are eligible and in need. By all intents and purposes with have a socialist society - whether people think it should be ‘improved’ is a different matter.
The volume of ‘Dickensian poverty’ is actually pretty low. The volume of ‘I can’t feed my kids on my UC but I have an IPad and iPhone on contract....is much higher’

YANBU! I was talking to a labour voting friend who said we should be paying more tax (45% currently). When I put it to him that he can pay much more to charities, nothing stopping him. He was practically lost for words. It's as if he couldn't think or act for himself.

Just because someone votes Tory and wants to decide how their salary is spent, doesn't automatically mean they don't give generously to charities and thus further contribute to society.

But of course that is just lies because the poorest 10% of households in the UK pay ZERO income tax, ZERO National Insurance, ZERO council tax.

On the contrary, if you had bothered to read the linked article...

" Official statistics show the lowest tenth of earners pay an average of 42 per cent of their income in the form of income tax, national insurance, VAT and council tax.

In contrast, the richest 10 per cent see around a third (34.4 per cent) of their earnings go to the taxman, according to analysis by The Equality Trust.

Council tax and VAT were found to hit the poorest households particularly hard. Low earners pay an average of seven per cent of their income in council tax while the wealthiest households pay just 1.5 per cent.

A similar trend applies to VAT, on which the poor pay 12.5 per cent of their income while the rich pay five per cent. "

@pinksauce I take it YOU have already opted out of the NHS, that red-under-the-sickbed organisation founded by arch communist Nye Bevin?

@littlepaddypaws Animal Farm was communism, not democratic socialism. Big difference.

Merry Christmas, OP. Even trolls should get fed on Xmas day

It's Christmas guys stfu about politics for one day

See this is where the Tory victimhood thread falls down. Lots of nasty digs at Labour voters here.

Although there is something to debate, why do the right wing always play the victim?

Oh and it seems that all higher rate tax payers on MN don't know the difference between marginal and average tax rates.

Makes one wonder about just how much truth is spoken here.

OP wants the rich to be able to freeload and exploit the working people without acknowledging that the source of the wealth and prosperity of any rich person derives ultimately from someone else's hard work

You're so right, no rich person actually earns their own money, it arrives to them having them of course not done any work whatsoever to actually earn it themselves. As everyone knows, rich people don't work. Money just happens to them

That wasn't what was said, but create your strawman if you like.

"No rich person earns their own money"

Take a look at the rich list and show me how many were entrepreneurs who started from nothing. Lots of folk get a start it in life.

The problem with rich tories on mumsnet is they are all guilty of self attribution bias.

The problem with being able to have an “opt in” is “free riders” those who want services but don’t want to pay. In the Jewish community we have a lot of services we provide from associations (medical, educational, burial, food,etc). We rely on a feeling of community obligation to ensure that those who can pay, do. Not sure if that would work in general society though.

That’s why we have an obligation to pay tax then distribute services on basis of need.

I do agree there is a bit of an issue with some labour voters who are keen to tax people as long as it’s not them and to happily spend their money on themselves. But that’s some, not necessarily most and definitely not all.