Will things ever get easier for the common man?

undetterred

Wookster wrote: »

Part of the problem now is that people expect everything to be easy.

They don't want to work hard for anything. This is the real problem with the Western world.

They seem to what now, what their parents have taken years to aquire.

heathcote123

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Okay, let's say they are unemployed. They'll be paying a hefty amount of their income as tax nonetheless. Close to every penny they earn will be paid to local businesses,
.

They spend it in Tescos, Wetherspoons, Argos & their drug dealers.

Not the local butcher...

heathcote123

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Firstly I think framing taxes as 'taking wealth' is illegitimate when their purpose is ensuring wealth is expended where it's appropriate. Taxes aren't "stolen" from you; they reflect wealth that society believes could be used more effectively than on your caprices.

That said, I believe the idea of `taxes' would be meaningless in a socialist society. In such a society people would work to provide wealth for each other. It's IMHO completely irrelevant to imply that socialism is something you obtain through high taxes; it's more a mindset where people work together towards betterment of society.

Well of course. So when I get a tax demand, (which I pay or go to prison) they are not 'taking' it, because they are spending it on something you think is worthwhile?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree that some degree of taxation is neccesary, but nowhere near the levels we have now.

I view (economic) socialism as somewhere in between communism (100% govt run) and captialism (every man for himself) - I'd guess around the 50% mark where we are now pretty much defines socialism for me.

Second point - how does socialism work without high taxes - the two are inseperable.

Your sophistry knows no bounds. You can win any arguament you like if you redefine the meaning of words.

I went to cuba not so long ago, and it's pretty rubbish. No-one seems to give a damn about the state of their bar/hotel etc, because they dont have a financial interest in it. Apart from when they're hassling for tips of course.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

I think you should consider re-examining how you apportion blame for this. Nixon and Kissinger were a pair of bottom cheeks but they have nothing on Pol Pot. They're not even playing the same game.

You really should consider your position on this. I have a few friends with a family background from the Indochinese area and those guys don't pull their punches when talking about the Commies. Their parents in many cases spent weeks or months on fishing boats to get to Aus because it was better to be drowned than worked to death in the killing fields.

My position is that I think the Americans were wrong for abandoning the Cambodians to their fate. I am not equating Nixon with Pol Pot, who was clearly one of the most evil people ever to have lived.

Cambodia was not entirely a willing participant in the war, like Vietnam they may have been better off without the Americans ham fisted attempts to tackle communism in se Asia and their "with us or against us" ultimatums that pulled them into a conflict they couldn't win alone. Its hard to see how things could have worked out any worse for them anyway.

JayBrun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

...Pol Pot, who was clearly one of the most evil people ever to have lived...

I and many others would agree with you.
Ilya Ilyich may not be one of them since he appears to feel that the actions of such people and their regimes have a valid part to play in the development of a country.

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

...What is your stance on year zero then -- that a short-term bloody revolution has no place in the overthrow of a bloody oppressive regime?

JWF

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. I think mankind is on the verge of the greatest century in it's history. I think the difference between the years 2100 and 2000 will be far greater than the difference between 2000 and 1900.

Genetic engineering - Humans / plants / animals
Fusion power
Commercialisation of space
AI

These are but a few of the possibilities that await us. All are possible and it would only take 1 of these to have the most profound impact across the world.

I agree with some of the above but my prediction about fusion power is that by 2100 commercial fusion power will be about 20 - 30 years away from being realised!

As for space, it is already commercialised - look at all the satellites whizzing about (Sky TV anyone?). Given the massive energy cost of getting in to orbit it is difficult to see how much more commercialised space can get, apart from a small amount of space tourism for the mega rich.

Generali

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

You seem to be arguing that poors are poor because they want to be

Where do I argue that?

Procrastinator333

JWF wrote: »

I agree with some of the above but my prediction about fusion power is that by 2100 commercial fusion power will be about 20 - 30 years away from being realised!

As for space, it is already commercialised - look at all the satellites whizzing about (Sky TV anyone?). Given the massive energy cost of getting in to orbit it is difficult to see how much more commercialised space can get, apart from a small amount of space tourism for the mega rich.

Yeah, fusion power is always 20 years away, and probably the one out of that lot I think least likely. But the theory is there. At some point engineering will catch up.

Low earth orbit is commercialised, but long term mankind will populate the solar system. At the moment, the cost of lugging every item up there restricts this. But ultimately, once there is a certain level of infrastructure up there, everything used up there will be produced up there. The only thing needing to go up or down from earth will be humans. 100 years may be too soon, but I bet there comes a day when asteroids get towed in to orbit and mined. A trillion tonnes of silver parked in low earth orbit may not help the silver bugs though.

Nanotechnology is another. Only a matter of time until instead of a surgeon stitching you up, you get an injection of nano robots that rebuild you cell by cell.

Think what someone from the likes of downtown abbey would have made of things like the space shuttle, 1km tall buildings, nuclear weopans, stem cell research, the Internet, etc etc. Imo, the difference between 2100 and now will be even more vast.

ruggedtoast

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Well done, Pobby. Said it for us. And when you say it's not helpful, it's not helpful to anyone - the Baby Boomers nor their critics.

Baby Boomers: remember food rationing? Remember getting equal rights for women? Abortion? Gay rights? Employment rights? Racial Equality? Who got all that changed?

Yes, there was free education. But who for - not for me because girls didn't, in general, go to university; women often didn't get Company pensions, and certainly a woman wouldn't be thinking of getting a house, because mortgages for single women were unaffordable (because of low salaries, and because bank managers wouldn't give women mortgages).

In the '70s there was no maternity pay, and empoyers could turn you down for a job because of your possible fertility (and even because you might have PMT). In the 80's there were soaring house prices; soaring interest rates; galloping inflation.

Baby Boomers came of age in the 60's and a lot of them are now providing free childcare for their grandchildren, and perhaps looking after ancient parents, we are not the ones in power now!

So don't keep blaming the baby boomers en masse for government policies and the results of the ongoing world financial crisis. It is the children of the Thatcherites who are the ones to speak to.

So you lot, do what we did after the war, get off your bottoms, get some backbone and stop whinging, deal with it.

I often wonder how the current lot of 30 year olds would manage if there was real hardship in this Country (of the kind my parents went through - my mother was shot at from a German plane in Bristol. My father dealt with bits of bodies in the Orthopoedic ward at the Bristol Royal Infirmary.) My sister hid under the stairs in terror from the bombs. A French friend, Jewish, was hidden for the war (in France) in a cupboard - yes, really!

You've been protected and spoilt, get some gumption, become inventive, or there really will be no hope for this Country in a competitive global situation.

For my situation, I came back to the UK in 1998 with no house, or pension. I was able (in selling my little house in Cape Town) to buy a second-hand Nissan Micra here in order to get to work. I have managed, through cutting down and really saving very, very hard, to buy a house which is paid off (bought 2000, paid off 2009), to get sufficient Company pension (I don't get the full basic state pension) to be able to live on about £1000 a month. The key thing is that I don't think the world owes me anything. I've struggled, really struggled, to get the little I have. If I can do it (I was an admin assistant, not highly paid) then I reckon anyone with any nous can do it too.


(Some, but not all, of the above has been taken from/inspired by U3A News, Autumn 2011)

Its funny how every boomer who posts seems to have struggled for decades for a pittance barely acquiring two pieces of coal to rub together and is now facing a retirement of penury; when this doesnt in any way accord with the stats we have as to where the majority of wealth lies.

If no one owes you anything I'm sure you wont mind foregoing your pension. I for one would be delighted not to have to pay it for you. Especially as it doesnt look like there will be anyone to pay mine when I (eventually) retire.

AliceJenkins

O come on! what pinch, quit whining.