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

kennyboy66_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread, but I am wondering whether anyone has made the arguement that the elites have profited from our sweat & toil for decades & it is merely a process of regaining what is rightfully ours...;)

.

LJ

Post 2

"They started it"

lemonjelly

Pobby wrote: »

I really do not mind paying tax as long as it is fair. This decade, in the good years I paid tax of £12k per year quite cheerfully. Business was good so fair enough. Currently paying tax at £4k. Business not so good. I might even pay less this year as seeing this as a retirement wind down.

However, what I would like to see is a raising of the basic tax free band. I feel that this would go some way to being an incentive to go to work.P Perhaps, levied at around £10k. This in turn would cut down a lot on the tax credit calculations.

Pobby, in reality I believe most right minded people have no real objection to paying fair taxation. Though debate often rumbles about how the income from taxation is spent.

I feel that raising the threshold would have benefits. I feel it needs to be combined with efforts to remove the entitlement culture which has come to prevail in society.

In the college I work in, we are already developing plans to limit the things people argue they are entitled to for coming to college.

In example, at enrolment, a lot of people come in & ask what courses they can do for free. Obviously, they have spent a lot of time & energy researching their educational needs & aspirations!;)

Secondly, here's an example of a conversation I interjected into last year. Student, on JSA for a number of years, & in all likelihood never worked. Enrols on a course. Applies for a bus pass. Is advised that she won't get one.

Student explodes, completely going off on one at a colleague. Shouting at them saying "you want me to come to college, how am I supposed to get here" threatening to drop out, arguing at being hard done by.

I intervened on the colleagues behalf. I pointed out she wanted to do the course. She had chosen to come & enrol, & it was her responsibility to ensure she could afford to attend the course. If she felt that she couldn't, then she should choose not to enrol. I reminded her that the Learning Skills Council would be covering her £500 tuition fees, & another fund would fund her £150 exam fees owing to being on JSA. Therefore she had already recieved support totalling £650.

She was not happy, argued it was her right, blah blah.

IIRC no bus pass was granted.

Funds will be even more limited in years to come, therefore we'll have a lot more of these cases.

lemonjelly

kennyboy66 wrote: »

LJ

Post 2

"They started it"

Fair do's kennyboy. Hope I don't steal any of your thunder!:)

Pete111

kennyboy66 wrote: »

There is a big distinction between what you descibe which are really the owners of companies (only a tiny percentage of whom will have outside shareholders) who in any case would take their money out of the company in dividends not salaries. These are the Branson / Sugar / james Dyson type of people.

The other set of directors are essentially bureaucrats (or technocrats). They have enriched themselves no end at the expense of shareholders and plundered company pension funds at the same time. In the main they are not risk takers at all - at least they are not risking their own wealth.

There are some excellent ones (Terry Leahy at Tesco for example - not matter what you think of Tesco) but these are well out numbered by the ar*se coverers and greasy pole climbers.

It is the second group which has helped push civil service salaries up as well.

Oink oink

I accept there are two groups.

Bit of a broad brush and negative categorisation of the second group though? Many will bring significant industry expertise to their companies. In addition, most will be highly intelligent and have worked bl**dy hard to 'climb the greasy pole' - After all, in most cases, and especially in a recession, unproven and lightweight people don't just get 'given' such posts.

(though I accept that in a small number of cases the old boys network will mean that sometimes this will occur)

Andy_L

StevieJ wrote: »

What did Joe Public gain from these contracts? from what I can see it was all one way.

To an extent it stopped the existing GPs retiring & encouraged new doctors to enter general practice, thus preventing the predicxted shortage of GPs

StevieJ

markharding557 wrote: »

BLAIR SOCIALIST!he is more right wing than cameron,he was george bushes poodle.
You really can not be serious when calling blair multiple mansions a socialist:rotfl:

I think you missed the point there, I was inferring they weren't Socialist, only in name.

markharding557

StevieJ wrote: »

I think you missed the point there, I was inferring they weren't Socialist, only in name.

Fair point.

C_Mababejive

At last people are waking up to Labour and Liberal "fairer" Britain policies and proclamations.

I cant speak for the liberals as they are largely irrelevant and will not hold power in a majority Government but Labour? Well they are rampant champagne socialists. They are not old school Socialists but what they are is a bunch of very wealthy people with Socialist ideals in which they want to create this panacea of a fairer Britain by taking YOUR money that you have grafted for,have saved,have been careful with,have denied yourself to obtain..and they want to dish that out to others who have not got what you have grafted for.

Now for me,,,i dont really care why they havent got what i have got.

Many of them could have what i have got if they get off their backsides.

I dont mind providing for the GENUINE sick and disabled. By this i mean someone who is so disabled that there is no possibility of them ever engaging in any productive,wealth/income generating work.

I also dont mind,for example,helping some poor lad or girl who has got entrained in phoney Tonys war in Iraq/Afghan and has been needlessly maimed and then dumped by the armed forces on their return home.

I DONT mean for example...

Baby breeders
People with bad backs
People who are depressed
smack heads/drug addicts and alcoholics
"single" mothers
DSS fraudsters with multiple personalities


Others can feel free to add to the list...

So Labour can take their "fairer" Britain and shove it becuase life aint fair.

Blacklight

C_Mababejive wrote: »

At last people are waking up to Labour and Liberal "fairer" Britain policies and proclamations.

I cant speak for the liberals as they are largely irrelevant and will not hold power in a majority Government but Labour? Well they are rampant champagne socialists. They are not old school Socialists but what they are is a bunch of very wealthy people with Socialist ideals in which they want to create this panacea of a fairer Britain by taking YOUR money that you have grafted for,have saved,have been careful with,have denied yourself to obtain..and they want to dish that out to others who have not got what you have grafted for.

Now for me,,,i dont really care why they havent got what i have got.

Many of them could have what i have got if they get off their backsides.

I dont mind providing for the GENUINE sick and disabled. By this i mean someone who is so disabled that there is no possibility of them ever engaging in any productive,wealth/income generating work.

I also dont mind,for example,helping some poor lad or girl who has got entrained in phoney Tonys war in Iraq/Afghan and has been needlessly maimed and then dumped by the armed forces on their return home.

I DONT mean for example...

Baby breeders
People with bad backs
People who are depressed
smack heads/drug addicts and alcoholics
"single" mothers
DSS fraudsters with multiple personalities


Others can feel free to add to the list...

So Labour can take their "fairer" Britain and shove it becuase life aint fair.

This reflects my sentiments entirely and I think most other people would agree this is common sense.

The problem comes back to these smack head, depressed, single mothers with bad backs on every benefit under they can scrounge to fund their drug dealing and stolen goods enterprises, also have a vote.

StevieJ

nickmason wrote: »

But when:
1) Doctors are not working 'cos frankly the tax rate's too high
2) Bankers and wealth generators are taking their business or entrepreneurship abroad
3) The incentives to find work are so low because of the tax/tax-credit regime that people look to work the system not the economy

I wonder whether we should resist the clamour to make things "less unfair" still.

But part of the reason the marginal tax rate is high is to pay the wages in the new doctors contracts, mmmm a bit of a ( what did Churchill call it ?) ah yes a conundrum wrapped in an enigma