Would the UK ever "revolt"

[mackenzie]

Would the UK ever "revolt"

No he wasn't really. Magna Carta was a good half millennia before that.

Yes, but the modern government we have now is radically different from the reign of Charles The First.

True but 500 years may have helped.

If anything the country was more 'settled.' Goes to show that anything can spark off a rebellion if those involved feel strongly enough.

 

[Fame Monster]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

It's human nature to work hard in order to ensure your children's future comfort, people will often pass on a family home for example so that their children or grandchildren will have a good start in life. To take that away might make people even more likely to shun hard work or high paying jobs, why earn more than you need when it will be taken away when you die? We might as well all sign on.

 

[SWP's back]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

You think we will vote in communism despite there no longer being a socialist party?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

It's human nature to work hard in order to ensure your children's future comfort, people will often pass on a family home for example so that their children or grandchildren will have a good start in life. To take that away might make people even more likely to shun hard work or high paying jobs, why earn more than you need when it will be taken away when you die? We might as well all sign on.

this, if it were the 1 differential between political parties I'd vote for the one that supported inheritance and raised the base rate before it got taxed.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

You think we will vote in communism despite there no longer being a socialist party?

And ever civilised developing or developed country giving up on it including the all powerful and conquering China and Russia

 

[SWP's back]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

You think we will vote in communism despite there no longer being a socialist party?

And ever civilised developing or developed country giving up on it including the all powerful and conquering China and Russia

To be fair, you'd only vote in the commies if you can't succeed under capitalism due to a lack of skills/intelligence.<br /><br />-- Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:26 pm --<br /><br />

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

It's human nature to work hard in order to ensure your children's future comfort, people will often pass on a family home for example so that their children or grandchildren will have a good start in life. To take that away might make people even more likely to shun hard work or high paying jobs, why earn more than you need when it will be taken away when you die? We might as well all sign on.

this, if it were the 1 differential between political parties I'd vote for the one that supported inheritance and raised the base rate before it got taxed.

By base rate, I assume you mean personal allowance.

Your idea has merits.

 

[Fame Monster]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

It's human nature to work hard in order to ensure your children's future comfort, people will often pass on a family home for example so that their children or grandchildren will have a good start in life. To take that away might make people even more likely to shun hard work or high paying jobs, why earn more than you need when it will be taken away when you die? We might as well all sign on.

I'd agree that productivity levels might decrease slightly so its about finding the balance.

But in idealistic terms, I'm against people getting a headstart over others in life as a result of something they have no control over. I believe people should get out of society what they put in. Not what others have put in, but them and them only. Equal opportunity as far as possible. When that has been achieved, you'd destroy all the vocabulary relating to the working class/middle class because you'd have destroyed the class system.

That doesn't in any way mean that I'm against parents providing for their children when they are a child.

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

A labour aristocracy/soft Socialist union which is what I'd describe the U.K/E.U. as, which has passed Human Rights legislation, has no desire to revolt.

If the Tories wanted the destruction of the welfare state, maybe there would be a large scale reaction but I'm not sure whether that'll happen.

What needs to happen now is to stop people passing on money to their children/friends. And to have a more detailed tax system which takes into account the merits of what you actually do to replace in part a measure of how much you earn. How that is achieved without making everyone worse off is the problem Western European countries are faced with, but I think the current electoral system will find the answer eventually.

It's human nature to work hard in order to ensure your children's future comfort, people will often pass on a family home for example so that their children or grandchildren will have a good start in life. To take that away might make people even more likely to shun hard work or high paying jobs, why earn more than you need when it will be taken away when you die? We might as well all sign on.

I'd agree that productivity levels might decrease slightly so its about finding the balance.

But in idealistic terms, I'm against people getting a headstart over others in life as a result of something they have no control over. I believe people should get out of society what they put in. Not what others have put in, but them and them only. Equal opportunity as far as possible. When that has been achieved, you'd destroy all the vocabulary relating to the working class/middle class because you'd have destroyed the class system.

That doesn't in any way mean that I'm against parents providing for their children when they are a child.

What if I owned a successful company that employed less than 50 people. I am old and I want to retire. What do I do with the business, other than hand it over to my son and heir?

 

[andyhinch]

No