Apparently we're not in recession some people on here have said

[Cyclone]

It might work ... but what would happen if those accountants (and the people who employ them) decided to take their ball (or their other toys) and go and play elsewhere?

 

Where did Dyson take his ball (along with all the jobs)?

 

(I must admit, I'm surprised that the ball vacuum was such a success ... it's a bit too vigorous for me. )

 

Where does 'Boots the Chemist' have its accountancy department?

 

Where do 'British Steel' (or whatever they are called nowadays) make most of their product?

 

Boots the Chemists have their accountancy department in Nottingham, but Boots the international group probably has one somewhere in Europe.

[Cyclone]

Well, if I had my way, we'd rip it up and start again.

 

But if we are talking about reforming then an amount equivalent to the national average wage per taxpayer per year.

Are you saying that this is the maximum you could save? So nobody could ever buy a house then?

 

Everyone would be a taxpayer and everyone would be on PAYE.

How can people who are not employed (ie own a business) be on PAYE?

 

The accountancy proffession would be nationalised and everyone would have one (like a doctor). They would all work for the government and we wouldn't have a choice who we got, and it wouldn't matter as they would all work to the same non negotiable rules - it would just be the "local accountant".

 

We could still invest our spare money but only in approved schemes. It wouldn't be complicated because the options would be strictly limited.

Why don't we call it communism, that has a nice ring to it.

 

Of course companies could still employ people who were qualified in accountancy, but they would in effect be nothing more than financial managers overseeing the preparation of the correct figures to be presented to the "local accountant".

Because the local accountant would be an expert in every area of accountancy...

 

Individuals who earn large salaries would still be able to spend it on whatever goods they desire - but not on additional property - one property per taxpayer.

So there won't be a rental market then.

The rich could still have their luxuries but they would not be allowed to use their wealth to make themselves even richer.

So they won't be allowed to start companies with their wealth, which happen to make them richer whilst paying the salaries for thousands of people and generating income for the government.

You've not actually considered this at all have you.

 

I accept there would be a lot of out of work financial advisors, but if they were any good they could retrain as government accountants.

 

It would follow that with all earnings being accounted for, the tax rates would fall and we'd all be a lot happier.

I think you'd destroy the economy and we'd all be equally unhappy as we starved to death. Which sounds a bit like the labour dream, equality for all by bringing everyone down to the lowest level.

[Cyclone]

My reply to Cyclone was kept as brief as possible just to show how people could be stopped from hoarding away private wealth.

 

It may require the imposition of country by country reporting (or whatever it's called) which I know many economists have been calling for, and many multinationals are lobbying against. Some argue it will never happen, but I think it will be inevitable, one day.

 

The argument of industrialists etc moving abroad is somewhat irrelevant - if a gap in the market appears then someone will fill it. We would have an attractive low tax economy where entrepreneurs or the highly paid could still save around £25k per annum - I think that's a pretty good incentive.

That's no incentive at all, Dyson probably made 25k/day, you think that being 'allowed' to save that much a year would be an incentive to stay here?

 

The main basis of my argument is to stop the upward/outward flow of capital. Our currency would be more stable as most of it would just circulate in the real economy.

 

It may sound protectionist but so what

So protectionism destroys economies.

- nobody forced this country to become a big player in international finance - the only reason we are in this position is because various institutions backed by every government of the last 250 years or so has seen it as way of making profits for themselves. But as their intentions are more and more discredited so the opportunity presents itself for a sustainable alternative.

 

Look at the developing countries of Africa and the Asian sub continent, they are being savaged by multinationals who have the weight of the IMF, WTO and World Bank behind them. We would be free to use our resources in a sustainable way.

 

And with regards to the debt; I suppose we would be fined massively by the IMF and their friends - we could just hyper inflate. So we may have to forgo our foreign holidays for a few years, I could live with that.

 

It's not for everyone, I know, but I think it would be better than what we got now.

 

And if we become a more harmonious society because of it, then maybe others will follow.

 

It's still capitalism, after all.

Not really.

[studentbob]

Are you saying that this is the maximum you could save? So nobody could ever buy a house then?

 

Per year, yes. Buy a house with a mortgage, like people do now. But they have to live in it.

 

How can people who are not employed (ie own a business) be on PAYE?

 

They become employees of their business, and pay PAYE like everyone else.

 

Why don't we call it communism, that has a nice ring to it.

 

Because it's nothing like communism.

 

Because the local accountant would be an expert in every area of accountancy...

 

Yes, it's A level stuff. No scams. No trust funds. Nothing offshore. Just book keeping, really.

 

So there won't be a rental market then.

 

No. But there will be rented houses, let by the local authority or not for profit housing associations.

 

So they won't be allowed to start companies with their wealth, which happen to make them richer whilst paying the salaries for thousands of people and generating income for the government.

 

Yes. They can start as many companies as they want as long as they follow the rules and don't attempt to save more than they are allowed each year.

 

You've not actually considered this at all have you.

 

Yes.

 

I think you'd destroy the economy and we'd all be equally unhappy as we starved to death. Which sounds a bit like the labour dream, equality for all by bringing everyone down to the lowest level.

 

I think you are descending into hysterics.

[studentbob]

That's no incentive at all, Dyson probably made 25k/day, you think that being 'allowed' to save that much a year would be an incentive to stay here?

 

And people wonder why the world is so screwed up.

How many people does Dyson employ in the UK. I honestly don't know the answer, but I bet it's less than he employs in the Indian sub continent.

 

So protectionism destroys economies.

 

I don't know whether that's a question or a statement, but I guess it depends on the nation's position within the global economy. The UK is a sovereign nation with it's own currency, is it anyone elses business how we run our affairs? Or where we decide to position ourselves?

 

Not really.

 

Yes it is, only with real rules that will work.

[Cyclone]

It is less now, you're correct. And the policies you're suggesting would be more likely to see people like him leave the UK. Originally he was running an entirely UK based operation.

 

It's a statement.

[Cyclone]

Per year, yes. Buy a house with a mortgage, like people do now. But they have to live in it.

So now you want to force people into debt because you're not going to allow them to save. This is your solution to big banks having the power to damage the economy, sounds well thought out.

 

They become employees of their business, and pay PAYE like everyone else.

So dividends will no longer exist. So share ownership is now impossible. So selling a share in a company to raise investment money is now impossible.

 

Because it's nothing like communism.

I disagree, it has a lot in common with it.

 

 

Yes, it's A level stuff. No scams. No trust funds. Nothing offshore. Just book keeping, really.

I think this just highlights your lack of knowledge to be honest.

 

No. But there will be rented houses, let by the local authority or not for profit housing associations.

You're sure it's not communism?

 

Yes. They can start as many companies as they want as long as they follow the rules and don't attempt to save more than they are allowed each year.

So they won't bother, they'll leave and start companies elsewhere. Well done, you've just driven every clever and/or wealthy or inventive person from the UK and there's just you and a bunch of people with no money and no ideas left.

Yes.

Clearly. It's all so well thought out. If your intention is to destroy the country.

 

I think you are descending into hysterics.

Think what you like.

I think that your policies sound like they've been dreamt up by an envious five year old and would result in the complete devastation of the economy and country.

 

PS - don't make me edit your messed up quotes again, it's tedious.

[studentbob]

So now you want to force people into debt because you're not going to allow them to save. This is your solution to big banks having the power to damage the economy, sounds well thought out.

 

 

So dividends will no longer exist. So share ownership is now impossible. So selling a share in a company to raise investment money is now impossible.

I disagree, it has a lot in common with it.

 

 

I think this just highlights your lack of knowledge to be honest.

 

 

You're sure it's not communism?

So they won't bother, they'll leave and start companies elsewhere. Well done, you've just driven every clever and/or wealthy or inventive person from the UK and there's just you and a bunch of people with no money and no ideas left.

 

Clearly. It's all so well thought out. If your intention is to destroy the country.

 

 

Think what you like.

I think that your policies sound like they've been dreamt up by an envious five year old and would result in the complete devastation of the economy and country.

 

PS - don't make me edit your messed up quotes again, it's tedious.

 

 

All I'm doing is simplifying things:

 

Community Banks - for savers and borrowers (including mortgagees)

 

All companies would have the same staus and be owned by the owners. If they want to sell a percentage and someone was willing to pay for it then that's ok.

 

Rules for business would be strict and simple; you buy things, you sell things; you offer a service. It's not that much different from what we have now, only without the fiddling and the predatory practices.

 

I'm sorry you can't see the benefits of such a system, but then you are looking at it from within the complexities of the present system.

 

btw sorry about the quotes - forgot how they work - wont happen again.

[Rupert_Baehr]

All I'm doing is simplifying things:

 

Community Banks - for savers and borrowers (including mortgagees)

 

Who bears the risk with these 'Community Banks' ?

 

If I have some spare money which I put into one of those Community Banks and which they lend to somebody who can't (or won't) repay it, how do I get my money back?

 

Would I -as the depositor - have a choice about where I put my money?

 

If so, then eventually some banks (those which are better run) would do well and others would fail. - As has happened in the past.

 

If it was my savings, shouldn't I have the right to decide what I do with them?

 

All companies would have the same staus and be owned by the owners. If they want to sell a percentage and someone was willing to pay for it then that's ok.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Stau? (Traffic jam) or Status? If 'status' what do you mean by that?

 

Are you suggesting that a poorly-managed company with a weak business plan; a company which is likely to fail, should be rated as highly as a company with a sound business plan which is run by people who know what they are doing?

 

- In your dreams!

 

Rules for business would be strict and simple; you buy things, you sell things; you offer a service. It's not that much different from what we have now, only without the fiddling and the predatory practices.

 

I suggest that there is a significant difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic.'

 

'You buy, you sell, you offer a service'.

 

What if you haven't got a clue what you're doing, if you haven't bothered to research your market, if you haven't bothered to write a (good) business plan and if you haven't got a clue how to run a company?

 

Who is going to sort out the mess you are likely to get yourself (and others) into?

 

I'm sorry you can't see the benefits of such a system, but then you are looking at it from within the complexities of the present system.

 

It may well be that schools, colleges and universities place too much emphasis on 'Business studies' but it's certainly not the case that a sound understanding of the theory - preferably backed up with some amount of experience - is totally unnecessary.

 

The system is indeed complex. - Life's like that. If running a successful business took no skill, no aptitude, no initiative and little or no effort, we would all be rich.

[Cyclone]

All I'm doing is simplifying things:

 

Community Banks - for savers and borrowers (including mortgagees)

You haven't explained why forcing people into debt because you won't allow them to save is somehow a good thing...

 

For that matter if physical currency exists you haven't explained how you can stop someone saving, it doesn't have to be in a bank, it can be under the mattress.

 

All companies would have the same staus and be owned by the owners.

So what would they do with their profit, currently they have the choice of paying it out to their owners or keeping it to reinvest. But you've said that dividends no longer exist (which makes you wonder why anyone would bother to buy part of a company).

If they want to sell a percentage and someone was willing to pay for it then that's ok.

There won't be anyone willing to pay for it from the UK of course, because nobody is allowed to save any surplus they make and build up an investable quantity.

No more dragons or business angels to invest in start up companies.

And no more start up companies, not based here anyway.