Energy realtors have a regulated profit margins. Energy producers are international companies so are somewhat outside the scope of nationalisation. Oil and gas prices are set in regional and global markets, the currency is declining which is a big source of this crisis.
I really appreciate your videos, Seb. For a long time follower of your channel, you have been the voice of reason for me in some very challenging and trying times. I hope you and your recruitment team are well. Thank you so much for your thoughts and eye opener to what the Government should be doing. Looking forward to your next video and subject with anticipation. 🌟
Need to cap how many residential homes a company / person can own I know people with 40 - 120 properties were as none of the next gen can afford to buy.. Its turning into then & us
I think the starting point would be having MPs who are in touch and in jobs they are qualified to do, nationalise energy, remove some of the red tape which hinders food production in this country, more financial education in schools, reform the benefits system(too easy for people to work the system currently rather than get work in skilled labour while the people who really need the financial help and support are struggling), offer extremely subsidised solar solutions to homeowners and reinvest in nuclear energy, look at newer ways of extracting shale gas if the environmental impact can be minimised.
The problem isnt just that landlords can charge what they like , but the fact is there is still discrimination against those who claim housing benifit, yes they cant advertise no dss a stupid thing to post due to that department not existing , but some still do, but housing benifit is still not high enough for a single person. Which is 570 a month.
@@tashariley6858 yeah nice idea but unfortunately that isn't always the case as some landlord will get rid of you if you even complain about having repairs done, plus some people myself excluded cant work so how if someone who can't work needs to find a place gets evicted by the landlord and so can't rent privately because of what I have stated , how do they work harder if they are then made homeless lol.
I don’t think I have seen any nationalised system actually work or isn’t corrupted or the standards drop of a cliff, nhs anyone! A documentary by dispatches showed the situation with energy companies was going on since 2014 when the government encouraged investors with no experience into the energy market no experience on trading wholesale market and most where making a year on year loss and had not been audited at all, the rot was going on for a long time before this now is the reckoning.
The UK needs PUBLIC OWNERSHIP of the *means of production & supply* of Energy, Water and food. Nationalising "energy companies" only increases the bill for the taxpayer in the long run. Need public ownership of the means of production & supply.
People have been trading their labour for money until now (or trading other peoples money and labour)... As automation is adopted the value of human labour will go down and before that happens at a societal level there needs to be *public ownership of the means of production & supply of Energy, Water and Food* so that even the poorest in society have their basic needs met. Of course there are better ways to distribute the massive wealth that comes with full automation but I think this would have to be a bare minimum starting point.
Financially they don't have the money. It'd be like asking a person who has maxed their high limit credit card to pay for 10 mates rents for the month.
I really appreciate this, and I love your content. I got a debate tomorrow, and have to argue that the goverment shouldn’t intervene any further the cost of living crisis, so I appreate this feedback.
I think my solution is very complicated I’d pay workers a percentage of the products they make or sell for a company plus a decent wage so the have incentive to stay with the company and do a good job for energy company’s I’d like them to donate let’s say 15 percent of there profits to the Dwp for the unemployed and sick and for all businesses to have apprenticeships for anyone interested in wanting to go into that particular business also should be a cap on the amount of homes a landlord can own let’s say 20 residential and no limit on commercial property. Hope I’ve not sounded stupid
@@RevorecRecruitmentSolutions thanks I was just thinking most employees feel they just a number if the got something for their work on top of wage directly for their work they’d feel more appreciated in my opinion
@D C I’m not suggesting not make the business profitable I’m saying if your in a business like you’ve just mentioned a delivery driver let’s say I change Amazon 30 quid a parcel I can afford to give my driver a hourly wage plus maybe a pound per package bonus and still make profits for the company
@D C all I’m saying is a company like Amazon or sky or any big company only stays in business due to employees and yes I agree that the creators of business should have lions share of the profits but give your employees a reason other than it’s a job putting food on your table and that’s it if your job shows your more than a number you’ll stay more likely
1 stop voting tory. 2 nationalise everything 3 tax the profits of the likes of apple and Starbucks 4 use the tax to help those in need 5 increase the tax threshold
Controversially im going to disagree with a few points but explain why. 1-Stop voting tory - the reason the debt began to mount which started this shitshow was due to quantitative easing which labour oversaw the introduction of. But as the stories are such a shambles im kind of not wanting to vote for anyone so maybe youre right. 2-id privatise everything but regulate it. If you nationalise everything itll all be ran on a show string budget amd break. Id rather pay a little more for something that works than a little less for something that doesnt. 3-tax the profits of apple and starbucks. I understand the controversy surrounding this but the media didnt explain why the government didnt tax them in the same way so public perception is they just dont pay tax which isnt true. Companies pay tax on profit which is called corporation tax. So if a company makes a profit they get taxed on the profit. So what many companies do is spend their profit before they release their figures by investing to grow the company. This creates more jobs (more paye tax into the system), better products that ppl want to buy (more vat into the system) and more stores, warehouses and sites (more business rates tax and capital gains tax into the system). Ppl lus their share price goes up so the gov make more tax from stocks and shares linked taxes. This in turn draws other companies to invest in the uk and do the same. All the government did was do the maths and they make more tax from apple and starbucks by miles allowing them to invest than charging them on profit. The media failed to tell the whole story so the public dont understand why. 4-Yes but the uk has 9 million ppl who could work, not working. Only a minority portion actually need the help where as the majority are verging on taking the piss. 5-increase the tax threshold. This would result in businesses leaving the uk thus laying off ppl to add to the 9 million unemployed and less tax coming into the uk. In the last 12 months we have started a defecit of -1500 businesses that were here, that have taken their business elsewhere. Hopefully that adds some insight you may not have known.
I'm no fan of new Labour either. In not taxing apple and amazon they have given an unfair market advantage which has decimated small businesses that were less efficient but employed more people conversely. By raising the threshold, I meant for the basic rate of tax from 12k to 20k
Good points and thank you for clarifying. Labour vs tories - sounds like we basically align on opinion. Apple and amazon - i can agree with your rationale here. Tax - I misunderstood. I dont think the gov will and its a sneaky easy way of using pay rises and inflation to make more tax from ppl. I think raising threshold would be fair too.
@@RevorecRecruitmentSolutions again with nationalised services you often get a bloated burocratic entity. However if run in competition with other companies it may keep it competitive in Perhaps a hybrid system. Perhaps for telecommunications it would make sense to nationalise open reach and bt but allow plusnet etc. to continue trading. Thus offering a better deal for customers by not chasing shareholder profits
This is only going to work with regulation but nationalised companies vs privatised, I just think standards would differ. The only selling point on a nationalised system would be bloody cheap. Nhs and Bupa being the key example but it does work so worthwhile idea. You never thought of going into politics? You'd get my vote at this rate. Good ideas
@D C 👍🏻 debt 💣 . The trouble is, debt is required to create currency into existence and with compounding interest there is no chance of getting out of debt.
@D C Capitalism is built on debt. 90% of money is created as debt. Keeping the peasants in debt is how the system works for the rich. So called bosses have luxury holidays and drive cars that cost more than the average house. My car is older than my kids and i can't afford a week in a caravan. But it is my work that puts money in their pockets. Why shouldn't i have a fair slice of the pie?
