Englands easy way to recovery.

[Longcol]

It is not the numbers of the people who agree that counts, but the quality of them. I am sorry that you do not understand that.

 

Trolling - and poor quality at that.

[carosio]

 

Let me paint you a scenario.

Guy leaves work on his way home to his family, he is mugged and stabbed and dies on the street. The week after all his assets, his house, furniture, car, bank accounts are seized by the state. What happens to the remaining family

 

I can't see where Leopold answers this one, apologies if I've overlooked it.

 

1. If there is no security of tenure for family members (legally, joint owners) then property ownership will diminish and renting would predominate; there would be no incentive for the owner to maintain or invest in his property through fear of losing it to the State in the event of death. In fact, many of the big estates are now run as companies rather than being personally owned.

 

3. The acquisition and ownership of assets in general would be undesirable and would be avoided or transferred into other instruments such as companies, corporations, etc.

 

4. There is also the question of life assurance which is paid upon the death of the policyholder. This is not an "asset" that can easily be seized by the state, or if it were then no one would insure.

 

5. Although everyone would (theoretically) begin life equal, they would progress, like now, into very unequal salaries and lifestyles, unless punitive taxation was introduced to mitigate this.

 

6. Charitable organizations, assuming they still exist, would have to look to the goverment for their funds.

 

7. Finally, a political party will have to introduce this policy into its manifesto.

[Leopold]

Trolling - and poor quality at that.[/quote

 

An easy option for someone who is out of their depth in a debate is to accuse another of trolling. They thereby hope that the "buzzword" will be picked up on by someone and perhaps the person reported as a troll and perhaps banned. The instigator then feels that he has won some sort of battle in his own little mind.

It is a poor ploy often used by people who do not have much to say that is worth listening to on all forums.

[Leopold]

I can't see where Leopold answers this one, apologies if I've overlooked it.

 

1. If there is no security of tenure for family members (legally, joint owners) then property ownership will diminish and renting would predominate, there would be no incentive for the owner to maintain or invest in his property through fear of losing it to the State in the event of death. In fact, many of the big estates are now ran as companies rather than being personally owned.

 

3. The acquisition and ownership of assets in general would be undesirable and would be avoided or transferred into other instruments such as companies, corporations, etc.

 

4. There is also the question of life assurance which is paid upon the death of the policyholder. This is not an "asset" that can easily be seized by the state, or if it were then no one would insure.

 

5. Although everyone would (theoretically) begin life equal, they would progress, like now, into very unequal salaries and lifestyles, unless punitive taxation was introduced to mitigate this.

 

6. Charitable organizations, assuming they still exist, would have to look to the goverment for their funds.

 

7. Finally, a political party will have to introduce this policy into its manifesto.

 

 

 

But what happens to a poor family at the moment in a similar scenario?

My idea would ensure that the state was MORE able to help such people, not less!

It would assist people equally!

[discodown]

I can't see where Leopold answers this one, apologies if I've overlooked it.

 

1. If there is no security of tenure for family members (legally, joint owners) then property ownership will diminish and renting would predominate; there would be no incentive for the owner to maintain or invest in his property through fear of losing it to the State in the event of death. In fact, many of the big estates are now run as companies rather than being personally owned.

 

3. The acquisition and ownership of assets in general would be undesirable and would be avoided or transferred into other instruments such as companies, corporations, etc.

 

4. There is also the question of life assurance which is paid upon the death of the policyholder. This is not an "asset" that can easily be seized by the state, or if it were then no one would insure.

 

5. Although everyone would (theoretically) begin life equal, they would progress, like now, into very unequal salaries and lifestyles, unless punitive taxation was introduced to mitigate this.

 

6. Charitable organizations, assuming they still exist, would have to look to the goverment for their funds.

 

7. Finally, a political party will have to introduce this policy into its manifesto.

Nicely summarized

[discodown]

But what happens to a poor family at the moment in a similar scenario?

My idea would ensure that the state was MORE able to help such people, not less!

It would assist people equally!

They don't get what little assets they have then taken away by the government making them poorer. thats what happens at the moment. You want to make the poor poorer

[Leopold]

Nicely summarized

 

Haven't you gone yet?

[discodown]

Haven't you gone yet?

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to stay.

[Longcol]

 

An easy option for someone who is out of their depth in a debate is to accuse another of trolling. They thereby hope that the "buzzword" will be picked up on by someone and perhaps the person reported as a troll and perhaps banned. The instigator then feels that he has won some sort of battle in his own little mind.

It is a poor ploy often used by people who do not have much to say that is worth listening to on all forums.

 

Strange that you haven't responded to any of my previous posts then.

[Leopold]

They don't get what little assets they have then taken away by the government making them poorer. thats what happens at the moment. You want to make the poor poorer

 

NOPERS!....I wish to stop the establishment being the establishment by taking the money that was earned (or stolen) by their families centuries ago. There is lots and lots of it to take. It merely needs the will by the masses to do it. I wish that you would understand!