How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?

StevieJ

nickmason wrote: »

(At risk of sounding like a participant in one of these tv debates) I was out canvassing the other day, and met someone, a perfectly respectable shopkeeper, who insisted on discussing the problem of scroungers - it turned out she effectively wanted to grass up her sister for being a scrounger off the state: false claims of long-term ill health, false claims for special needs in her children, bizarre medical grants for holidays, etc.

I was struck not simply by the fact that this is becoming a recurrent story, but that her anger was no longer directed at "A N Other", but to a blood-family member. I have a feeling this could get very nasty.

I think that says more about that sibling relationship than the benefits system :eek:

StevieJ

C_Mababejive wrote: »

They are not working class...they are The Underclass...parasitic on us all.

That 14-1 is still available about a +75% turnout if you can get them out you could be on a winner

StevieJ

Pete111 wrote: »

Those costs will have (surely to goodness) been considered and budgetted for well before the new rate came was announced - the 'new' contracts have been in place for years.

The only real reason they put the tax rate up is to attempt to screw over the Tories. The chances of this bringing in vast swathes of cash is very minimal. It may in fact lose the country money in the medium term.

Ironic don't you think, one group of public sector employees who have benefited greatly under Labour complaining about the tax rates

ninky_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Basically, we are asking those that earn more, through their own hard work, study, sacrifice etc to pay more than the lazy.

there is no statistical correlation between hard work and wealth. some people may have got richer through working harder. some people have worked hard and have actually ended up poorer. but statistically there is not consistent link. there are plenty of idle rich about.

i know this is difficult to believe for those who were brought up on the protestant work ethic but until we start turning away from almost religiously based concepts to the scientific truth we won't move forward.

ninky_2

http://www.anxietyculture.com/puritan.htm

Pete111

ninky wrote: »

there is no statistical correlation between hard work and wealth. some people may have got richer through working harder. some people have worked hard and have actually ended up poorer. but statistically there is not consistent link. there are plenty of idle rich about.

i know this is difficult to believe for those who were brought up on the protestant work ethic but until we start turning away from almost religiously based concepts to the scientific truth we won't move forward.

working hard doesn't make you wealthy and being lazy doesn't make you poor

Interesting.

But did you know that 85.8% of statistical data is made up on the spot?



Actually Ninky I half believe you. Did you know for example, that these days there are literally thousands of able bodied people doing s*d all all day and making a tidy sum out of it.

Their laziness is certainly paying off....cheers for pointing that out!

PrivatisetheNHSnow

ninky wrote: »

there is no statistical correlation between hard work and wealth....but statistically there is not consistent link.

that's rubbish - doctor, lawyer, accountant, surveyor, architect, professor etc involve hard work to train for the job and when they're working.

ninky wrote: »

tthere are plenty of idle rich about.

those are people that have inherited money and property like the duke of westminster

Charterhouse

The problem with a progessive tax system is that by its very nature it moves capital from the productive members of society (the rich) to the less productive members of society (the poor). Now to an extent that is a good thing, because a compassionate society is a very good thing, but at a certain stage of taxation it will definitely act as an economic drag. That's just a fact.

beer_tins

Charterhouse wrote: »

The problem with a progessive tax system is that by its very nature it moves capital from the productive members of society (the rich) to the less productive members of society (the poor). Now to an extent that is a good thing, because a compassionate society is a very good thing, but at a certain stage of taxation it will definitely act as an economic drag. That's just a fact.

An economic drag? Are you talking about trickle-down economics? That was discredited some time ago.

If you want to get the economy going, give the poorest people more money. Why? Because they spend the highest proportion of their income, through necessity. So virtually all of the money you give to the lowest earners goes directly back into the economy.

That's just a fact.

Give a rich person more money and he may not spend more money. It may not get put back in the economy to the same extent.

Snooze

LydiaJ wrote: »

I do realise that this suggestion is probably not meant entirely seriously, but I still felt I had to point out just how ludicrous it is.

You take all the people who are currently employed as doctors, teachers, binmen, school cleaners, lollipop people, customs officers, police, armed forces personnel, doctors' secretaries, coastguards, council office receptionists etc, many of whom are highly qualified and almost all of whom are currently demonstrating that they are able and willing to show up for work and earn a living. You sack them all (on what grounds??) and plunge them and their families into unnecessary economic hardship and uncertainty. Do you pay them JSA?

Then you give their jobs to those who are currently unemployed - some of whom are excellent, deserving and unfortunate people who would be great in some of the jobs. However, others are workshy and unreliable, and still others have commitment and skills, but are better suited by inclination, aptitude and experience to jobs that don't exist in the public sector - like our very own Max Headroom who wanted to be a car salesman and eventually got a job as one. You wouldn't get a good match of enough unemployed people to the skills required for jobs like teaching A-level maths, or piloting a search and rescue helicopter, or being a mental health nurse.

You still have the same number of jobs, and you still have the same number of unemployed people, but the work is no longer being done by the best people for the jobs, and people who've already shown some kind of work ethic have all been kicked in the teeth. What exactly have you gained?

I'm talking about non-skilled people in their bullet proof jobs, not people like docs. Sacking people that clean toilets and emptying bins for a living will be doing them a favour as it forces them to go and make something of their lives. As usual though, the average leftie can't accept that some people have to suffer for the greater good and their solution to every problem is to run to the bathroom cabinet for another 10 rolls of cotton wool.