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

carolt

nickmason wrote: »

This is absolute and utter tosh. There is a huge statistical correlation between hard work and wealth. Enormous. Vast. Which to be fair is me just playing with statistics -as you are. But your prosleytising "as science" is a bit hypocritical.

Now you might think it's not a perfect correlation - and you'd also be right. This is in part because of taxation - and the left-wing taxation policies, which I understand you like, make the correlation weaker. Saving (especially intergenerational saving) which I like as I see it as the flip side of investment, will distort it as well. And of course there are idle rich - but that doesn't disprove the correlation, just as one idle poor doesn't prove it.

But if you work through the principle that you're suggesting, that work doesn't correlate with wealth, then the logical extension, like the utterances of some French student philosopher in the 60s, is that no one should work (at least until we have "the revolution").

Again I wouldn't really mind that approach, if it wasn't that I end up paying for those silly or selfish enough not to work. We should be doing what we can to encourage people that they should work, rather than pointing out to them (fallaciously) that there's no point.

How do you define 'hard work'? Number of hours? Amount of physical and/or mental labour involved? Or what? If the latter, should we then demand that the naturally strong and/or brainy are paid less, as it's actually easier for them?

In a week in which we've learnt that top bosses now take home, IIRC, 273 times what their basic workers earn, any link between hard work and wealth based on mere hours alone is clearly nonsense - there's no way, even over a lifetime, that the bosses have done 273 times as many hours as the basic workers, even allowing for them to work a longer day on average (which is questionable, given that they don't need to do overtime to pay their mortgage).

I occasionally wonder if my family would actually be better off financially if we gave up work and lived on benefits - with 3 kids we'd clean up on benefits, plus we'd be 'entitled to' a house at least as big as we have currently, bigger as they got older. And never need to get out of bed in the morning.

I'm not at all convinced hard work pays, but that's not the only reason I do it.

But the rewards from work are more than purely financial. If getting richer was my only aim, I'd undoubtedly have chosen a different job.

You cannot prove that hard work pays financially, beause it blatantly doesn't. Hard work in certain areas does pay, but then so does milking the benefit system or marrying someone rich or being a successful criminal.

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

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

Odds of 10-1 now, shrinking fast

bristol_pilot

I don't have kids so I'm better off working, but for a family with more than 2 kids working is a mug's game - most would be far better off on benefits, housing benefit alone can be over £57,000 net.

I agree with the sentiments of the OP - taxing working people to death so that lazy chavs can have a few more quid to spend on booze and fags is certainly not 'fairness' in my view, but it does seem to be the LibDem idea of the meaning of the word.

WhiteHorse

chris_m wrote:

Surely asking people not in gainful employment to perform a necessary function in return for money to help them live is not unreasonable?

This falls into a government trap - the idea that benefits are a charitable handout.

In some cases they might be, but the key words here are National Insurance. You pay a premium into an insurance fund that pays out when you hit hard times.

If you've paid in, then demanding that you do something 'in return' for what you've already paid for is an insult.

WhiteHorse

The_White_Horse wrote: »

The poll tax was the fairest tax ever
...

Actually, No.

Although the idea had some validity, what actually happened was that greedy local councils used it as an excuse to impose gigantic tax rises.

... the scum revolted until it was changed.

Public anger was immense and across the spectrum. These were not the scum, this was one of those rare instances when the majority flexed its muscles.

Let's have more of it.

WhiteHorse

markharding557 wrote:

You really can not be serious when calling blair multiple mansions a socialist.

History shows that Lefties have the most expensive tastes of all. There's no-one quicker to move into a recently vacated palace than a Red.

chris_m

WhiteHorse wrote: »

This falls into a government trap - the idea that benefits are a charitable handout.

In some cases they might be, but the key words here are National Insurance. You pay a premium into an insurance fund that pays out when you hit hard times.

If you've paid in, then demanding that you do something 'in return' for what you've already paid for is an insult.

And what about the people who haven't paid in?
i.e. those that have never worked, either through their own choice or otherwise?

WhiteHorse

LydiaJ wrote:

Secondly, unless you want to live in a country where patients are treated in filthy hospitals and children are educated in filthy schools, then the people who clean the toilets and empty the bins are providing an important service, doing a job that almost nobody could enjoy, for a wage that many people wouldn't get out of bed for. I am grateful to them.

Yes, quite.

If the bin men go on strike, we really know about it. Rats in the streets? No running water? No passable roads?

Many of those who are held in such low regard are actually essential to the fabric of our civilisation.

WhiteHorse

chris_m wrote: »

And what about the people who haven't paid in? i.e. those that have never worked, either through their own choice or otherwise?

That's why it was qualified ... "... in some cases they might be". However, for the majority, who have paid in, it's an insult.

lynzpower

Snooze wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous :rolleyes:. What is wrong with all you lefties? Can't you think outside the box or is it just that you're all stupid? Obviously they would need to be cleaned to a certain standard and if they are not then they keep doing them until they are done right. Their choice - clean them properly and receive your JSA and have your tax paid, or don't clean and get neither. With regards the bins, there is no middle ground - they are either emptied or they aren't so your "what about if they don't do them right" argument is void.

I don't understand why all this is so difficult for your all to comprehend. Or is it just that you are all perfectly happy having 40-60% of your incomes going straight into the pocket of the Stella/Kyle brigade? If not then !!!!!! whining and accept that something drastic needs to be done. :rolleyes:

I earn 25k and actually got a tax cut last year, im sure many people did too.
I didnt need that money and would much prefer higher taxes. I have no objection to paying taxes, although from time to time I avoid buying things that attract vat, but thats just my own personal challenge

You seem to think that returning to the Victorian days over overflowing bins, people in trolleys dying in doorways is something to aspire to. Tell me this, why would you sack one cleaner ( and obviously have to pay out in a tribunals in some cases as people just get sacked because its someone elses turn??- sorry these are basic employment rights) to take on someone who has not proven that they are able to hold down the job? Is this what you really want for the taxpayer?

What do you think would happen to our politicians if they went wholesale sacking people? Is that what you want for David Cameron?

What so you can have an extra 50 a month in your pay cheque.

And people wonder why this country has gone to the dogs.

Its all self self self! :rotfl::rotfl: