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

Primrose

I'm beginning to get rather weary of politicians who continually harp on about "the poor". Virtually all of us started out poor when we were young. Most people start from scratch when they finish education and start working for a living. It is only by hard work, prudence, getting qualifications and saving rather spending that many people, by the time they reach their latter years sometimes have substantial sum of money saved.

Why should these people become targets for being penalised because they are no longer at the starting point of their lives? Politicians should stop banging the drum about "Fairness". Life is never fair. It's up to individuals to make the most of their lives and if people choose to spend their finite amount of income on booze, cigarettes, expensive holidays or whatever, good luck to them! . But if they choose this route and end up living in rented accommodation until the end of their lives with very little put by for their old age, whose fault is that? We all have choices and it seems to be that those who have exercised their choices well are now the ones who are being penalised to subsidise those who haven't.

WhiteHorse

carolt wrote: »

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

Definition of a Gentleman: 'Someone who can drink his fill but still remain a Gentleman'.:)

nickmason

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Definition of a Gentleman: 'Someone who can drink his fill but still remain a Gentleman'.:)

I was very surprised, when at university, to discover from my left-wing friends that the poem "IF" was, rather than an inspirational exhortation of the virtues of stoicism and a Stiff Upper Lip, in fact an out-dated, chauvinist embarrassment dating from the best-forgotten days of the Empire.

StevieJ

nickmason wrote: »

I was very surprised, when at university, to discover from my left-wing friends that the poem "IF" was, rather than an inspirational exhortation of the virtues of stoicism and a Stiff Upper Lip, in fact an out-dated, chauvinist embarrassment dating from the best-forgotten days of the Empire.

I love Kipling but I think poems like White Man's Burden have not enamoured him to those on the left consequently all his works have been linked to a glory of empire including that brilliant poem. Interestingly when his only son was killed in WW1 he wrote these words.

"If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied."

lostinrates

lynzpower wrote: »

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:

Actually, the cleaner thing is interesting. If we paid less in tax we could afford to pay a cleaner: providing direct employment not a handout. I know it is not alays the case, but I like to think I would be a good employer, people who worked for me in the past have gone on to achieve well, and often point out they'd come back to me if I can afford them/go back into business myself. In paying the tax as well as losing the oppertunity to emply and pay directly, I've lost the oppertunity to provide society with an employer as good as I could be and as flexible as a domestic employer can afford to be...responsive to things like sick children. Of course, I also feel very strongly that while small employers including domestic scale should provide sick and holiday leave they could not support in most cases maternity pay long term sick pay.

carolt

The govt pays maternity pay, not employers.

Don't know about long-term sick pay, though.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

The govt pays maternity pay, not employers.

Don't know about long-term sick pay, though.

would thy do this on a domestic scale, what costs or repercussions, if any, would this impose on the employers? I think this is so interesting.

A._Badger

carolt wrote: »

The govt pays maternity pay, not employers.

Don't know about long-term sick pay, though.

But the government sets (under EU fiat of course) the rules surrounding maternity/paternity leave and so on. As anyone but a government stooge knows, these rules make running a small business a nightmare and they impose enormous costs, both obvious and concealed

carolt

AFAIK, they always pay statutory maternity pay, whatever the size of the employer.

carolt

A._Badger wrote: »

But the government sets (under EU fiat of course) the rules surrounding maternity/paternity leave and so on. As anyone but a government stooge knows, these rules make running a small business a nightmare and they impose enormous costs, both obvious and concealed

True, but I'm not sure the alternatives are actually better, in a long-term health-of-our-socity way.