Tell me this is not the best country in the world

ExremelyCautiousSocialist

Takedap wrote: »

People's circumstances change. Jobs are lost, marriages break down, illnesses happen. Or maybe no-one should have kids eh? Just in case?

Yes but not everyone is equal. Some people have got themselves into a position where they are more qualified to consider responsibly having kids to begin with. Some people are already in an advantageous position. Its a scale, not black and white. There will always be exceptions and anomalies. The idea is to produce better quality overall.

Cakeguts

Takedap wrote: »

People's circumstances change. Jobs are lost, marriages break down, illnesses happen. Or maybe no-one should have kids eh? Just in case?

That is not the problem. There are a lot of people who think it would be nice to have a baby without thinking about how they will look after and train an older child.



If you start from the basis that children do not ask to be born and then think about how little thought some people put into having them you soon realise that this isn't just about money.

GreatApe

triathlon wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48637484

About half of my huge family now own second homes, we are living in a world where my parents could only once dream of when they first moved to England.

The current world economic system is working really well

Some ~500 million new homes will have been built this decade 2010-2020

While the narrative is 'economic inequality' the truth is the poor and middle are getting richer at a rate never seen on the history of the planet

Lets hope the ignorant politicians do not burn the economic system down and stop this amazing progress

Herzlos

Yet in the UK, inequality is at a rate that hasn't been seen in generations. The poorest are still getting shafted, and the wealth is accumulating with the already wealthy. It's a great deal if you're in the already wealthy camp, but for anyone else it's pretty crap. Social mobility is a lot worse too - if you're born poor you'll probably remain poor-ish, no matter how hard you work. There are obviously a few exceptions.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Yet in the UK, inequality is at a rate that hasn't been seen in generations.

Would you rather live in a country in which everybody had £1 except for one guy who had £50; or in one where everybody had £2 except for one guy who had £100?

For added fun, in the first case Mr £50 pays £5 tax and in the second Mr £100 pays £40 tax. Which would you prefer?

ExremelyCautiousSocialist

Do you want double your current quality of life for your life span guaranteed? or do you want double the opportunity to attain an even greater multiple of quality of life but with no guarantees?

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

Yet in the UK, inequality is at a rate that hasn't been seen in generations.

I dont care what rate the top 1% are increasing or decreasing their wealth the metric is just stupid.

If a dozen uk billionaires die and their assets are split between 1000 family members then uk 'inequality' just took a dive yet how did that fall in inequality help the drug adict homeless kid who was abused by his mother and failed by his labor council?

The poorest are still getting shafted

You are so wedded to your ideology that you refuse to think for just one moment

Please actually think about this. From the year 2000 to 2030 the world will have built 1.5 billion decent homes which is enough to house 3.75 billion people (at 2.5 persons per house) there is no way around the fact that neoLiberal capitalism has taken the worlds poor which did not even have decent housing at a sufficient quantity and has built them said housing in an amazingly fast way

'and the wealth is accumulating with the already wealthy'

Most millionaires in the UK/USA/China/India are first generation rich.
New money, not old money. You know this to be true

Some of the richest people on the planet were super poor. Elon musk worth some $10-15 billion says when he was younger he slept on the floor and for a time survived on just $1 a day for food

'It's a great deal if you're in the already wealthy camp, but for anyone else it's pretty crap.'

Relative to what?

And no, the rich and the poor their lives are not so much dictated by wealth but by addictions

For instance there was the story of the young legitimate kid that was awarded some £50 million estate from his father passing. His father, super wealthy, was a drug addict living in squalor in his car even though he was super wealthy

At the same time I know an immigrant lady that hasnt worked a day in her life and still to this day barely speaks English she got by on benefits but she managed to bring up two good kids that now have middle class well paid jobs. She did so because she was stable with no addictions

Plus the amazing thing about free market capitalism is that it provided goods and services at every price point. The rich person might spend £100 in a restaurant while the poor person might have to spend £2 in tesco to buy some ingredients and cook it himself. Im not sure I would say ones life is clearly better than the others they are just different and Id much rather be the guy buying the £2 ingridents in tesco in health and sound mind than the £100 in a restaurant guy with marriage problems or a drug addiction

Social mobility is a lot worse too

You really do live in a propaganda universe

Social and ethnic mobility is not worse.
Look at the number of mixed marriages.
Look at the number of first gen middle class job kids

if you're born poor you'll probably remain poor-ish, no matter how hard you work. There are obviously a few exceptions.

If you are born into a dysfunctional family you have it hard
You do not have it hard if you are born into a FUNCTIONAL POOR FAMILY

I know this first hand, I grew up on a council estate
The parents that disciplined their kids and kept a tidy house the kids turned out well
The parents that had ferrel kids and their homes looked like bombed out shelters the kids did not turn out well

Both types of families were on the same benefits and the kids went to the same schools

The #1 factor in how well you do will be how functional your family and yourself are
You may not live the life of a rock start but you will live a decent life


I do wonder if people like you are loners just sitting at home projecting imaginary dreams of what the country is like or you just confirmation bias and anecdote bias your views into existence. Surely you personally know some functional and some dysfunctional people and surely its got not a lot to do with their wealth but their temperaments and their dysfunctions

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

Would you rather live in a country in which everybody had £1 except for one guy who had £50; or in one where everybody had £2 except for one guy who had £100?

For added fun, in the first case Mr £50 pays £5 tax and in the second Mr £100 pays £40 tax. Which would you prefer?

It doesn't even matter the whole metric is a pointless metric to look at

In poor countries the #1 problem is people are actually extremely poor and the nation needs to up its productivity so people stop starving and dying of easily treatable diseases. We are well past that stage

If inequality goes up or down, if taxes go up or down, it makes virtually no difference to 'the poor'

If the lefties were really driven by love for the poor they would first highlight that the problem is dysfunctional families addictions and habits and has more or less nothing to do with how rich rich people are. Then they could try to figure out how they or charities or the church or the state can turn dysfunctional individuals and families around

But of course its got nowt to do with the poor or 'inequality' its all about the desire for one group of people to gain political power for themselves and this is the excuse they use for votes.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

Would you rather live in a country in which everybody had £1 except for one guy who had £50; or in one where everybody had £2 except for one guy who had £100?

For added fun, in the first case Mr £50 pays £5 tax and in the second Mr £100 pays £40 tax. Which would you prefer?

Whatever your views, everyone knows the current system is broken, because currently i'm at the bottom and the best way I know how I might not be at the bottom anymore is if the house burns down and we start again. If we could somehow paint those on top as evil and using those in the middle and bottom that would be helpful too so we could round them up and feed them to the cattle so there is less competition and descent when the new system is in place

If you could get this started with some urgency it would be much appreciated, Thank you

The fact that more or less every metric points to a boom in living conditions and standards for the poorest, none so clearly than the 1.5 billion homes that will be constructed 2000-2030 under capitalism, is a fact I am willing to ignore

Mistermeaner

I've never understood why (lots but not all) lefties draw arbitrary boundaries around the geographic areas in which the rich should give to the poor

For example anyone on base benefits doing no work in the UK is housed fed and has basic entertainment and complete freedom , free healthcare and free security and protection

That is more than (I would guess and someone will correct) 95% of the globe

Why do lefties think that these individuals deserve more help than e.g. An orphan in India ? Or a working family with 3 kids in chile ? Or a single mother in Brooklyn ?

Why does the left conscious stop at the arbitrary borders of the UK ?