The rich - poor gap
Discussion
Martin4x4 said:
turbobloke said:
There is indeed no point.
It's also fascinating to see Martin4x4's mindreading at work, revealing via psychic powers the claimed knowledge that pupils receiving help have wealthy parents, it's amazing and wrong in many instances. Class has nothing to do with what I think or what I type on PH. I've always been hardworking class and always will be and deal with people on the basis of their actions not their background. The anachronistic nonsense of class warfare failed Labour in the Crewe and Natwich by-election and has nothing to offer today.
The responsibility for preaching a flawed model is your (Martin4x4) problem not mine. I suppport the only viable means of helping people who genuinely can't help themselves which is firstly to help sustain those who can and do help them, these being successful businesses and taxpayers, particularly those on higher rates. It's these groups that pay the tax which provides benefits and other welfare provision.
I'd rather mentor a start-up or two and encourage high expectations via uni entrance than risk encountering emotionally incontinent and intellectually challenged Guardian readers wailing about investigative journalism in a food bank.
With (or without) help, start-up businesses can grow and provide jobs which pay for a bit of extra food that can be donated to a food bank. The socialist money tree doesn't exist and fine words in support of the poor are easy, but the socialist path to failure is well trodden and offers nothing but continued dependency as that's what the vote-buying rhetoric is all about.
Emotive carp from the deluded left only serves to increase poverty and wealth gaps while nearly bankrupting the country, as per Labour's failures in the 70s, 90s and 00s. Who'd be idiotic enough to want a third dose of that in a working lifetime.
What I find <i>fascinating</i> is your attempts to rationalise that Doublethink. I think underneath all your rhetoric there is a decent human being trying to get out.It's also fascinating to see Martin4x4's mindreading at work, revealing via psychic powers the claimed knowledge that pupils receiving help have wealthy parents, it's amazing and wrong in many instances. Class has nothing to do with what I think or what I type on PH. I've always been hardworking class and always will be and deal with people on the basis of their actions not their background. The anachronistic nonsense of class warfare failed Labour in the Crewe and Natwich by-election and has nothing to offer today.
The responsibility for preaching a flawed model is your (Martin4x4) problem not mine. I suppport the only viable means of helping people who genuinely can't help themselves which is firstly to help sustain those who can and do help them, these being successful businesses and taxpayers, particularly those on higher rates. It's these groups that pay the tax which provides benefits and other welfare provision.
I'd rather mentor a start-up or two and encourage high expectations via uni entrance than risk encountering emotionally incontinent and intellectually challenged Guardian readers wailing about investigative journalism in a food bank.
With (or without) help, start-up businesses can grow and provide jobs which pay for a bit of extra food that can be donated to a food bank. The socialist money tree doesn't exist and fine words in support of the poor are easy, but the socialist path to failure is well trodden and offers nothing but continued dependency as that's what the vote-buying rhetoric is all about.
Emotive carp from the deluded left only serves to increase poverty and wealth gaps while nearly bankrupting the country, as per Labour's failures in the 70s, 90s and 00s. Who'd be idiotic enough to want a third dose of that in a working lifetime.
Why not give him the chance.
Who are you to judge anyone. Before somebody goes personal I post evidenced content with reasoning for content and you/other usual suspects reply with personal angles including slurs and insults. Nice - who's the decent human being, answers on a postcard etc.
nightflight said:
Murph7355 said:
Rovinghawk said:
...
As with all taxes, the reason for its introduction is that the government at the time decided it was a new way to produce additional revenue.
100%.As with all taxes, the reason for its introduction is that the government at the time decided it was a new way to produce additional revenue.
I'm in 2 minds on IHT. Instinctively it feels wrong to me, but I can see the argument that says it's simply "income" for the new recipient of the wealth, irrespective of whether the original "owner" of it paid their taxes in accumulating it.
To be honest, it doesn't seem that difficult to avoid it, so on balance I think I'd err on the "leave it alone" side of life. There are other taxes I'd sooner see cut first.
I would scrap capital gains tax, inheritance tax, VAT, and introduce a single rate of income tax of around 25% at a threshold of 15K. The economy would take off, and the government would have a much simpler system to implement. This would also be combined with extensive welfare reforms.
Mike
Dear TB the decent human being is one that does not make sweeping generalisations about others whom he knows nothing about.
People come with baggage ,some have the initiative,drive and good fortune to rise to the top,maybe as you did.
Many others do not,they make up the large majority that bumble along trying to make sense of life in a difficult world.
Life has taught me not to judge others and certainly not to judge them by my own standards, one cannot walk in another man's shoes.
I notice that you are a prolific poster on many topics and respect that you are an intelligent and well read fellow and I do not underestimate your powers of argument,that said many of your posts although logical and well founded appear to lack a certain empathy with those that fall short of your high standards.
People come with baggage ,some have the initiative,drive and good fortune to rise to the top,maybe as you did.
Many others do not,they make up the large majority that bumble along trying to make sense of life in a difficult world.
Life has taught me not to judge others and certainly not to judge them by my own standards, one cannot walk in another man's shoes.
I notice that you are a prolific poster on many topics and respect that you are an intelligent and well read fellow and I do not underestimate your powers of argument,that said many of your posts although logical and well founded appear to lack a certain empathy with those that fall short of your high standards.
mikees said:
Agree but IHT is irrelevant and is easily avoidable with a good solicitor. It's just noise, a few zero band trusts and it's sorted unless we are talking 5m plus, even on paye.
Mike
Err, what?Mike
For most a zero band trust relates to pre 2007, since then the zero band can be passed on to the spouse allowing the second to die to have £650k zero rate band. But above that the estate will pay 40% unless it's being given to charity.
The only way to avoid that is to give it away more the seven years before you die, but that's really giving it away not, for example, giving the house to your kids and still living there.
IHT is not that easy to avoid, at least not if you want control of your assets until you die.
avinalarf said:
Dear TB the decent human being is one that does not make sweeping generalisations about others whom he knows nothing about.
Agreed, you could even apply that to people you encounter on the internet.avinalarf said:
People come with baggage ,some have the initiative,drive and good fortune to rise to the top,maybe as you did.
See above, you know nothing about me yet manage a sweeping generalisation. Hypocrisy strikes again in less than a couple of lines 
avinalarf said:
Life has taught me not to judge others
Just one exception then - some bloke called TB on PH. Lucky me.You judge me in virtually every post these days and yet as per your offerings and my reply above, you know nothing about me.
avinalarf said:
I notice that you are a prolific poster on many topics and respect that you are an intelligent and well read fellow and I do not underestimate your powers of argument,that said many of your posts although logical and well founded appear to lack a certain empathy with those that fall short of your high standards.
You have absolutely no idea about what levels of empathy I have.Hang on, you don't judge others
just me and empathy, how very lucky I am. The whole argument of helping folks who help themselves has a massive flaw. One that can be rectified, but a flaw nonetheless. Rugged individualism, which this argument espouses, exists in a place like the USa because it is inbred into their culture, and has been since before the days of Thoreau, Walden, Go West Young Man., etc.
American society is founded on that very principle, it echoes through every domestic policy, and through every state and private enterprise, if a person does not or cannot embrace rugged individualism they will have a hard time in the USA.
It has not been for a very long time part of British culture. It is not in and of itself a bad theory, but for it to work there needs to be wholesale revision of British education, social policy, private sector, public sector, housing, etc etc. The imposition of individualism as a policy in the UK has wrought huge social problems, and not been thought through properly. It is easy to say " someone who works hard, makes the effort, crosses all the hurdles in their path etc, can do well in the UK" but for years the mantra was " do not make waves, don't try to stand out, try to fit in, if you are working class be proud of that, but you need to remain there" etc etc. To expect a people to change in less than one generation is unrealistic. There needs to be a more graduated slope, and it really all begins with the education system.
American society is founded on that very principle, it echoes through every domestic policy, and through every state and private enterprise, if a person does not or cannot embrace rugged individualism they will have a hard time in the USA.
It has not been for a very long time part of British culture. It is not in and of itself a bad theory, but for it to work there needs to be wholesale revision of British education, social policy, private sector, public sector, housing, etc etc. The imposition of individualism as a policy in the UK has wrought huge social problems, and not been thought through properly. It is easy to say " someone who works hard, makes the effort, crosses all the hurdles in their path etc, can do well in the UK" but for years the mantra was " do not make waves, don't try to stand out, try to fit in, if you are working class be proud of that, but you need to remain there" etc etc. To expect a people to change in less than one generation is unrealistic. There needs to be a more graduated slope, and it really all begins with the education system.
turbobloke said:
avinalarf said:
Dear TB the decent human being is one that does not make sweeping generalisations about others whom he knows nothing about.
Agreed, you could even apply that to people you encounter on the internet.avinalarf said:
People come with baggage ,some have the initiative,drive and good fortune to rise to the top,maybe as you did.
See above, you know nothing about me yet manage a sweeping generalisation. Hypocrisy strikes again in less than a couple of lines avinalarf said:
Life has taught me not to judge others
Just one exception then - some bloke called TB on PH. Lucky me.You judge me in virtually every post these days and yet as per your offerings and my reply above, you know nothing about me.
avinalarf said:
I notice that you are a prolific poster on many topics and respect that you are an intelligent and well read fellow and I do not underestimate your powers of argument,that said many of your posts although logical and well founded appear to lack a certain empathy with those that fall short of your high standards.
You have absolutely no idea about what levels of empathy I have.Hang on, you don't judge others
just me and empathy, how very lucky I am.You asked a question , I simply answered it.
Of course I know nothing about you,just as you know nothing about me.
I can only argue with you on the basis of your opinions that you post.
You might just be a bloke that enjoys a good argument or you might like playing devil's advocate,how am I supposed to know.
It would appear only your opinions are worthy as most others you treat with contempt.
Shouting loudly TB does not win an argument,why not try playing the ball and not the player.
santona1937 said:
....It is easy to say " someone who works hard, makes the effort, crosses all the hurdles in their path etc, can do well in the UK" but for years the mantra was " do not make waves, don't try to stand out, try to fit in, if you are working class be proud of that, but you need to remain there" etc etc. To expect a people to change in less than one generation is unrealistic. There needs to be a more graduated slope, and it really all begins with the education system.
Does it though?IMO it comes from people wanting to change their lot. And being supported (even if not driven) to do so by their parents/guardians.
At that point they make the most of the "free" education they are provided and the journey starts from there.
The education system in this country is, I agree, on a slippery slope. We can argue whose fault that is until the cows come home. But individuals can choose to make the most of it or not, and if they do they can still do well for themselves. The choices, however, start from an early age and need supportive parents.
This is where it falls down IMO, and where society is collapsing. And I don't believe the root of that is the education system per se either...the wondrous Welfare State plays a far bigger part IMO. The safety net morphed into something obscene, removing all accountability for poor life choices. Indeed, it rewards them (possibly what you meant by changes to "social policy"?).
santona1937 said:
The whole argument of helping folks who help themselves has a massive flaw. One that can be rectified, but a flaw nonetheless. Rugged individualism, which this argument espouses, exists in a place like the USa because it is inbred into their culture, and has been since before the days of Thoreau, Walden, Go West Young Man., etc.
American society is founded on that very principle, it echoes through every domestic policy, and through every state and private enterprise, if a person does not or cannot embrace rugged individualism they will have a hard time in the USA.
It has not been for a very long time part of British culture. It is not in and of itself a bad theory, but for it to work there needs to be wholesale revision of British education, social policy, private sector, public sector, housing, etc etc. The imposition of individualism as a policy in the UK has wrought huge social problems, and not been thought through properly. It is easy to say " someone who works hard, makes the effort, crosses all the hurdles in their path etc, can do well in the UK" but for years the mantra was " do not make waves, don't try to stand out, try to fit in, if you are working class be proud of that, but you need to remain there" etc etc. To expect a people to change in less than one generation is unrealistic. There needs to be a more graduated slope, and it really all begins with the education system.
An interesting argument Nic .American society is founded on that very principle, it echoes through every domestic policy, and through every state and private enterprise, if a person does not or cannot embrace rugged individualism they will have a hard time in the USA.
It has not been for a very long time part of British culture. It is not in and of itself a bad theory, but for it to work there needs to be wholesale revision of British education, social policy, private sector, public sector, housing, etc etc. The imposition of individualism as a policy in the UK has wrought huge social problems, and not been thought through properly. It is easy to say " someone who works hard, makes the effort, crosses all the hurdles in their path etc, can do well in the UK" but for years the mantra was " do not make waves, don't try to stand out, try to fit in, if you are working class be proud of that, but you need to remain there" etc etc. To expect a people to change in less than one generation is unrealistic. There needs to be a more graduated slope, and it really all begins with the education system.
It has been to the advantage of the few that the majority remain sheep,that's the way it is in most societies both to the right and left,different sides of the same coin.
I don't know if it could work any other way.
I am not sure whether you are advocating the USA model as the way to go,it certainly encourages as you put it "rugged individualism", but ,as you know there is a huge gulf between the very wealthy and the very poor.
I don't believe therefore that it can be described as an example of a successful social model.
Edited by avinalarf on Monday 21st April 21:53
avinalarf said:
An interesting argument Nic .
It has been to the advantage of the few that the majority remain sheep,that's the way it is in most societies both to the right and left,different sides of the same coin.
I don't know if it could work any other way.
It goes deeper than that. It's nature.It has been to the advantage of the few that the majority remain sheep,that's the way it is in most societies both to the right and left,different sides of the same coin.
I don't know if it could work any other way.
We like to think we should be above that sort of thing, but fundamentally we are not.
It cannot work any other way. One way or another there is always a pecking order. All our "intelligence" does for us is to try and convince us this is not "fair".
Murph7355 said:
Does it though?
IMO it comes from people wanting to change their lot. And being supported (even if not driven) to do so by their parents/guardians.
At that point they make the most of the "free" education they are provided and the journey starts from there.
The education system in this country is, I agree, on a slippery slope. We can argue whose fault that is until the cows come home. But individuals can choose to make the most of it or not, and if they do they can still do well for themselves. The choices, however, start from an early age and need supportive parents.
This is where it falls down IMO, and where society is collapsing. And I don't believe the root of that is the education system per se either...the wondrous Welfare State plays a far bigger part IMO. The safety net morphed into something obscene, removing all accountability for poor life choices. Indeed, it rewards them (possibly what you meant by changes to "social policy"?).
IMHO folks need to be taught parenting as it refers to individual responsibility. Perhaps because I spent a long time in the States where children were inoculated in schools with the idea that it was up to them to make a go of it, and taught it was up to them to grow up and raise children who believed , and that, in order to keep the USA the most magnificent place in the world, they HAD to do that. The American system teaches people how to parent in that respect. As obnoxious as it may seem to us Europeans the whole singing the national anthem, pledging allegiance thing works IMO it comes from people wanting to change their lot. And being supported (even if not driven) to do so by their parents/guardians.
At that point they make the most of the "free" education they are provided and the journey starts from there.
The education system in this country is, I agree, on a slippery slope. We can argue whose fault that is until the cows come home. But individuals can choose to make the most of it or not, and if they do they can still do well for themselves. The choices, however, start from an early age and need supportive parents.
This is where it falls down IMO, and where society is collapsing. And I don't believe the root of that is the education system per se either...the wondrous Welfare State plays a far bigger part IMO. The safety net morphed into something obscene, removing all accountability for poor life choices. Indeed, it rewards them (possibly what you meant by changes to "social policy"?).
And yes I do mean the Welfare state, Even as a Hard lefty/ (perhaps verging on the communist) I think that what is being asked of welfare is a few steps too far. I see no paradox in from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, and the desire to improve and contribute as much as you can. The welfare system should be there to support those who cannot contribute, for whatever reason, not for those who choose not to contribute.
It seems to me some are missing a most important point.
We live in a capitalist society that relies on the creation of wealth ,the paradox is that those that create the wealth also often create the opportunities for others to have jobs to pay their way in life,whilst providing a safety net for the physically and mentally challenged.
Although flawed it has worked fairly well but in times of crisis,such as in the past 10 years,this model has become strained to breaking point.
I have spoken about a "fair" society,one which values those that are the backbone of that society,the nurses,the teachers,the housewife,the ordinary working man and woman.
We need these people to maintain our society and they are entitled to feel valued and to receive adequate renumeration for their work that allows them a reasonable standard of living.
So either we pay them more and they can then contribute more,or we pay them peanuts and then have to subsidise them to maintain their living standards,it's one or t'other.
We also now live in a global economy and with the ease of migration of labour that also has exacerbated the problems.
It might not and possibly should not mean that the wealthier members of our society should be highly taxed but I just do not know where else the money is supposed to come from.
We live in a capitalist society that relies on the creation of wealth ,the paradox is that those that create the wealth also often create the opportunities for others to have jobs to pay their way in life,whilst providing a safety net for the physically and mentally challenged.
Although flawed it has worked fairly well but in times of crisis,such as in the past 10 years,this model has become strained to breaking point.
I have spoken about a "fair" society,one which values those that are the backbone of that society,the nurses,the teachers,the housewife,the ordinary working man and woman.
We need these people to maintain our society and they are entitled to feel valued and to receive adequate renumeration for their work that allows them a reasonable standard of living.
So either we pay them more and they can then contribute more,or we pay them peanuts and then have to subsidise them to maintain their living standards,it's one or t'other.
We also now live in a global economy and with the ease of migration of labour that also has exacerbated the problems.
It might not and possibly should not mean that the wealthier members of our society should be highly taxed but I just do not know where else the money is supposed to come from.
Edited by avinalarf on Monday 21st April 22:25
santona1937 said:
IMHO folks need to be taught parenting as it refers to individual responsibility...
Agreed it's a fundamentally important factor but identifying those most in need is one barrier, resources are limited and not every parent needs to be helped or can be helped and some are shrewd enough to mask what's going on and are not easily identifiable. Then, of those in need of support, by no means all will agree they need to be helped and then take the assistance on offer. It's something I've seen at first hand in a governor role in a school in a challenging location which made strenuous and user-friendly efforts with mixed results.avinalarf said:
This is really not up to your usual standard TB.
You asked a question , I simply answered it.
Of course I know nothing about you,just as you know nothing about me.
I can only argue with you on the basis of your opinions that you post.
You might just be a bloke that enjoys a good argument or you might like playing devil's advocate,how am I supposed to know.
It would appear only your opinions are worthy as most others you treat with contempt.
Shouting loudly TB does not win an argument,why not try playing the ball and not the player.
No comment TB,that's not like you.You asked a question , I simply answered it.
Of course I know nothing about you,just as you know nothing about me.
I can only argue with you on the basis of your opinions that you post.
You might just be a bloke that enjoys a good argument or you might like playing devil's advocate,how am I supposed to know.
It would appear only your opinions are worthy as most others you treat with contempt.
Shouting loudly TB does not win an argument,why not try playing the ball and not the player.
900T-R said:
So what's the dearest iPhone nowadays - 600 quid? Every school kid has got one -
Nonsense. My kids don't have iPhones. None of their mates has got the latest iPhone, but one or two have an older model iPhone. Most of the kids have smartphones of some description, but certainly not £600 iPhones.I'd be amazed if 2% of schoolkids nationwide had the latest iPhone.
avinalarf said:
An interesting argument Nic .
It has been to the advantage of the few that the majority remain sheep,that's the way it is in most societies both to the right and left,different sides of the same coin.
I don't know if it could work any other way.
I am not sure whether you are advocating the USA model as the way to go,it certainly encourages as you put it "rugged individualism", but ,as you know there is a huge gulf between the very wealthy and the very poor.
I don't believe therefore that it can be described as an example of a successful social model.
Not advocating the American system at all, it is deeply flawed in many many ways. but there is something to be said for folks taking on a bit more responsibility for their own lives, where they can. It has been to the advantage of the few that the majority remain sheep,that's the way it is in most societies both to the right and left,different sides of the same coin.
I don't know if it could work any other way.
I am not sure whether you are advocating the USA model as the way to go,it certainly encourages as you put it "rugged individualism", but ,as you know there is a huge gulf between the very wealthy and the very poor.
I don't believe therefore that it can be described as an example of a successful social model.
Edited by avinalarf on Monday 21st April 21:53
Even a Communist system requires folks to have a desire to improve. THe UK for too long has been riding a path on which greyness is the norm. And these days there is a segment of the population that wants to develop a more American model. My point is that you cannot just adopt that model without large changes to the way people are taught, raised and encouraged. The problem that I see is that folks want to introduce this more American Drive, but are not prepared to spend the time, effort or capital laying the groundwork, and that in the meantime these driven people wanting to change the system are demonising, and not understandinf, those for whom the American model is a strange and scary beast.
avinalarf said:
An interesting argument Nic .
It has been to the advantage of the few that the majority remain sheep,that's the way it is in most societies both to the right and left,different sides of the same coin.
I don't know if it could work any other way.
I am not sure whether you are advocating the USA model as the way to go,it certainly encourages as you put it "rugged individualism", but ,as you know there is a huge gulf between the very wealthy and the very poor.
I don't believe therefore that it can be described as an example of a successful social model.
I think you will find that history shows, for this country at least, the sheep are ignored at the wolves' peril.It has been to the advantage of the few that the majority remain sheep,that's the way it is in most societies both to the right and left,different sides of the same coin.
I don't know if it could work any other way.
I am not sure whether you are advocating the USA model as the way to go,it certainly encourages as you put it "rugged individualism", but ,as you know there is a huge gulf between the very wealthy and the very poor.
I don't believe therefore that it can be described as an example of a successful social model.
We have gone through a period where the sheep have been compliant and this may well have induced a feeling that they are powerless. But the evidence is that they are not.
16 pages... 16 pages of the usual swivel eyed, envious, and fiscally illiterate clap trap.
I forget the names, but those posters proposing 75% tax rates, that investment causes deflation, or that you can tax your way into equality, please, for the love of god, stop posting on economic threads. You don't get it, and you won't, no matter how hard others try to educate you. You may as well be trying to fly to the moon - its beyond your reach, and wailing will not bring it closer.
Life isn't fair. There, I said it. Some people live long healthy lives, others die young. Some are pretty, others munt. Some are intelligent, others vote labour. And some are lucky, others aren't.
Rather than tax wealth, you'd create a more equal society by taxing beauty. Sound ridiculous? It is, but no more so than trying to tax your way into ought but poverty.
Stop paying for the creation of benefits babies and you'll reduce the number in relative poverty faster than any other means.
If we divided the nations wealth equally among us tomorrow, by 2015 we would again have "the rich" and we'd still have the poor. It may not be the same people that are rich, but it would be mostly the same people that are poor.
Get over the envy of others lives and make the best of your own.
I didn't do well at school, and my family are firmly blue collar, but in about 15 years time, I should have hit my first million. Mostly down to my parents making me stick in at school when I hated it, and partly due to me being lucky.
I pay more than enough for the state, but all I see is wholesale waste on unaffordable pensions that cost lottery win size pools of cash to fund, non-jobs, inefficiency, and laziness. Will I pay more for that? No, thanks, I can put my money to better use.
I forget the names, but those posters proposing 75% tax rates, that investment causes deflation, or that you can tax your way into equality, please, for the love of god, stop posting on economic threads. You don't get it, and you won't, no matter how hard others try to educate you. You may as well be trying to fly to the moon - its beyond your reach, and wailing will not bring it closer.
Life isn't fair. There, I said it. Some people live long healthy lives, others die young. Some are pretty, others munt. Some are intelligent, others vote labour. And some are lucky, others aren't.
Rather than tax wealth, you'd create a more equal society by taxing beauty. Sound ridiculous? It is, but no more so than trying to tax your way into ought but poverty.
Stop paying for the creation of benefits babies and you'll reduce the number in relative poverty faster than any other means.
If we divided the nations wealth equally among us tomorrow, by 2015 we would again have "the rich" and we'd still have the poor. It may not be the same people that are rich, but it would be mostly the same people that are poor.
Get over the envy of others lives and make the best of your own.
I didn't do well at school, and my family are firmly blue collar, but in about 15 years time, I should have hit my first million. Mostly down to my parents making me stick in at school when I hated it, and partly due to me being lucky.
I pay more than enough for the state, but all I see is wholesale waste on unaffordable pensions that cost lottery win size pools of cash to fund, non-jobs, inefficiency, and laziness. Will I pay more for that? No, thanks, I can put my money to better use.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff