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

chris_m

WhiteHorse wrote: »

, for the majority, who have paid in, it's an insult.

Rubbish - if one loses one's job and there are no suitable jobs around at the time, which is worse? Being asked to do a few hours useful community service which helps you keep in a work frame of mind and makes you feel wanted or having to sit at home feeling more and more worthless as time progresses?
I know which I'd prefer.

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

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?

Sorry Carol, I was setting up a straw man - a deliberately absurd argument, using the same liberties with "science" as Ninky. The truth is a middle ground, that there's some correlation (even then - the correlation is obviously better between work and income - wealth rather depends on whether you spend it or not! )

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.

obviously don't know your income, but you'd probably be better off, especially when you consider all that time you had.

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.

This was obliquely my point - we should be encouraging people to work, because the returns are more than financial.

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.

I'd quite like a world different from that. Although apparently marrying someone rich has its own versions of hard work...and as for criminals, well maybe we need to reintroduce "hard labour". Oh, you said "successful criminal".

carolt

nickmason wrote: »

obviously don't know your income, but you'd probably be better off, especially when you consider all that time you had.


This was obliquely my point - we should be encouraging people to work, because the returns are more than financial.

I'd quite like a world different from that. Although apparently marrying someone rich has its own versions of hard work...and as for criminals, well maybe we need to reintroduce "hard labour". Oh, you said "successful criminal".

Hope you're wrong on the first point - never bothered to calculate it, but I'd be rather effed off.

Re the general point, I wonder if the difference between you and ninky is that ninky would like work to = income, whereas you're quite happy that it doesn't. Or is that just my stereotype of Tories who believe in and welcome inequality (as long as they're at the top of the pack, naturally)?

WhiteHorse

chris_m wrote:

Rubbish

Better perhaps to say 'I disagree'. Hmmm?

- if one loses one's job and there are no suitable jobs around at the time, which is worse? [etc]

You still miss the point. You've paid into the fund for this reason, so you're entitled to take out.

WhiteHorse

carolt wrote:

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

One of the ancient Greek writers commented that work was necessary to keep the lower orders occupied, lest they destroy everything in a drunken rampage.

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

Hope you're wrong on the first point - never bothered to calculate it, but I'd be rather effed off.

Re the general point, I wonder if the difference between you and ninky is that ninky would like work to = income, whereas you're quite happy that it doesn't. Or is that just my stereotype of Tories who believe in and welcome inequality (as long as they're at the top of the pack, naturally)?

I'd like work to equal income, except where people can't work, where there should be some income anyhow. So does that make me more left-wing than ninky? Of course, I'd also like lots of things, but they aren't likely...

carolt

WhiteHorse wrote: »

One of the ancient Greek writers commented that work was necessary to keep the lower orders occupied, lest they destroy everything in a drunken rampage.

That seems fair. But surely that applies to the higher orders too?

carolt

nickmason wrote: »

I'd like work to equal income, except where people can't work, where there should be some income anyhow. So does that make me more left-wing than ninky? Of course, I'd also like lots of things, but they aren't likely...

So...am I to assume that (a) you're in the wrong party, (b) you're lying or just very confused or (c) that the only difference between the left and the right is that those on the left are intrinsically more hopeful and optimistic that what ought to be can be?

Malcolm.

nickmason wrote: »

I'd like work to equal income

I do not know what that phrase means.

Everyone works for the same wage?

People are paid equally whether they work intelligently or not?

Perhaps some bright spark could explain it to me.

carolt

I took it as meaning equal effort = equal income. But then I'm a simple soul.