Capitalism is in essence the free market economy - although it can have restraints and still be considered capitalism. The real question you should be asking is what alternative system is there that will feed a planet of 7 billion OK - so I am going to get some stick here - I am reading Dan Brown's Inferno - shut up - yes it is not literature but it is a good page turning summer read. The main thesis is the world's population is just too big and we need a Middle ages Style black death. You have to accept the fact that if 90% of the human race were to be wiped out by a plague the remaining 10% could set up a world government with modern technology that made those 10% very comfortable. OK anyone going to advocate that?
An entrepreneur will create wealth for people... I understand that... AND/BUT We need social services etc etc
Of course we need social services and a safety net for the needy but these need to be paid for. This can only be done by the UK producing goods for the domestic and world markets. There are now encouraging signs that some pride has returned manufacturing UK goods but as much assistance is needed from the UK government on energy costs and tax rates. I remember some french contacts who owned small firms despaired every time the french government needed more cash it would pile on taxes on their business until they just stopped trading.
No he employs the person as a personal Valet, but not needed as part of the Duchy of Cornwall. When he becomes Monarch he will lose the Duchy title, but I would bet that the Valet stays in his personal employment. He is just using it to offset some of the revenue. Anyone else would be accused of tax avoidance.
You have no information on what is or is not allowed by the Inland Revenue as his tax claim - since even you apparently know the duties of Prince Charles' valet he does not appear to be keeping it too much of a secret so you can be sure your ever alert public sector will not allow his expenses where they do not belong.
Just how far should a government go in distributing wealth? Last year our President increased TVA, personal income tax and company taxes. He decided that he had to go in that direction in order to continue paying out generous benefits to the poorer members of the population, state pensions to the elderly and keep many civil servants in work. He estimated that the extra taxes would bring in €30 billion. What has actually happened is that too much tax earns the state less, not more income, and his plans have been blown out of the water when he only received half of the expected sum. The jobless figures hit a new record high in April and he is now pleading with the EU to create policies that will boost trade. He snubbed the EU when he came to office saying that his left wing politics were better than the concensus ones that come from that body, so however much he might want to be the good guy, he is a totally spent force and the poor are in a worse position than when they hoped that by voting for him their lot would improve.
That is always a problem Frenchie - Labour faced the same on the 45 - 50% tax rate - it is a good headline for the lefties but does not increase overall tax revenue.
true eh..... I had a friend who was a builder who started a business in France.... and at the end of the year he got nobbled for their version of NI for a local guy he employed ... which was the same as what he had the guy for a year's work.... he went out of business and when he comes back to France he literally keeps his head down
As incredible as we may think he was actually elected on a ticket of increased public spending, retirement at an earlier age and no austerity. This course was more or less the complete opposite of most other countries affected by the recession. The gullible french public must look at themselves as to why this clown was ever elected in the first place. I am concerned that the France will not accept the necessary medicine required to turn it's economy around until it is in a dire position. I know the medical system is the best in the world and the living is easy (if you are not young, self employed etc) but they are becoming increasingly uncompetitive compared to Germany.
The hope for the economy is the new Prime Minister. He is not popular with the socialists, but has not suffered the dreadful poll ratings that the rest of the government have and is talking some sense about trying to get the economy back in shape. Why did Hollande appoint him? Because he has opposing ideas and there is not much else left to try? The trouble of course is that since the clown came to power the accumulated debts have become worse. Germany, UK and even Spain are showing growth, but France has seen output fall back again. Maybe the comments from people like Angela Merkel will finally be listened to, but I can see Hollande becoming more and more pushed to one side.
oldfrenchhorn i'm afraid you have more faith than I. I suspect even a new french government which vowed to only spend what it could reasonably afford would lack consensus amongst the vast majority of the population. They are used to high levels of entitlements which are becoming increasingly unaffordable. They are also bitterly opposed to any form of financial management that is based on any UK/US models especially the idea of low tax /small government. One anomaly has always been the accepted involvement of private enterprise within their national healthcare system, strange for such a socialist country.
The levels of political activity of the British population are very low Yorkie. In my humble opinion the amount of seats allotted to each country in the European parliament should be related to actual voter turnout and not to overall population. Why should e.g. Belgium not be rewarded with extra seats for having a turnout of 90% and seats be deducted from e.g. the Czech Republic which had only 18%. What is just as alarming is that only just over 1% of the British are members of political parties (ie. active in politics) compared to e.g. 17% in Austria and 10% in Belgium. In my opinion voting should be made compulsory as in Belgium and Luxembourg. Food for thought - in the 1950s political membership stood at just under 10% of the British population.
Hardly fair when voting there is compulsory? Even then, 10% chose not to vote. As to the 10% political membership in the 1950s - maybe that simply reflected the feelings of the time - a population totally disillusioned by the antics of the 'ruling classes'? Does anyone know of any research that has been conducted regarding why there is such apathy? Maybe in this case it simply reflects the population's feelings towards EU membership - being asked to vote for something they don't want anyway, without the option of 'None of the above' on the ballot paper...
