Does anyone agree with taking money off the poor to give to the rich?

[Mecky 10]

Who did I kick in the knackers?

 

Don't come that one, you're as bad as the others on here - the poor should do that, the poor should do this. Ever thought you may end up poor one day?

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

The key word in this is "earned", it has a clever double meaning as links both renumeration and meriting.

 

But who is to say you have earned it (in the meriting sense), you may think you do others may think not and without an understanding of how you got the money we cannot comment on your circumstances.

 

If I walk out to a car boot sale on Sunday morning and pick up a painting for a fiver, in the knowledge it is worth thousands are my actions meriting of the profit I've made on that. Some will argue it's legal what I've done so it is, others will argue it isn't and the only way to redress this unfairness is increased taxation on my profit.

 

Personally I refuse to accept that because someone is good at business, that they are entitled to the wealth that this skill brings along with it. There are other more demanding skills which should be rewarded more but aren't.

 

No, in my case 'earned' means 'worked for the money, saved like hell and put my spare money into buying a house.'

 

When I was a kid, people used to do that. If you wanted the biggest colour TV, the most flash car, the most expensive holidays, you could have them. Alternatively, you could work and save your money to buy those things you felt (and it was your choice) were more important.

 

I pit my family first. My choice. Others put themselves (and the flash car, expensive holidays etc) first. Their choice.

[L00b 441]

The key word in this is "earned", it has a clever double meaning as links both renumeration and meriting.

It only has a double-meaning under your appreciation of the subject/matter.

 

Conventionally, 'earned' means just that, i.e. as a contrary to 'given', 'gifted' or 'stolen'.

Don't come that one, you're as bad as the others on here - the poor should do that, the poor should do this. Ever thought you may end up poor one day?

As an 'other' (no doubt), know that I've been at both ends of the scale a few times.

 

As a kid, chucked out with my parents by bailiffs with the clothes (pyjamas) I was wearing and not much else. It's a formative, motivating experience.

 

And as an adult, with a newly-pregnant wife, both without jobs (and scant prospects of getting new ones, as we were both sacked for gross misconduct (entirely unfairly/fabricated, but that's another story)), and financial commitments including a mortgage. Oh, and no entitlement to any benefits whatsoever, btw (save as to what women normally get when they're pregnant, free dental if I remember right), after paying into the system for years and years.

 

The difference between staying poor or clawing your way back is smarts, sheer graft, and a sizeable dose of willpower. Having the ability to handle stress, and to remain fully-functional on 2 to 3 hours sleep a night, also helps.

 

In that context, I am at least a little bit entitled to my opinions on the matter

Edited October 12, 2012 by L00b

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Don't come that one, you're as bad as the others on here - the poor should do that, the poor should do this. Ever thought you may end up poor one day?

 

I was poor once. I wasn't prepared to stay poor.

 

Being impoverished is one hell of a motivator!

 

There's a world of difference between 'Not having as much as the guy next door' and being poor.

[I1L2T3 10]

No, in my case 'earned' means 'worked for the money, saved like hell and put my spare money into buying a house.'

 

When I was a kid, people used to do that. If you wanted the biggest colour TV, the most flash car, the most expensive holidays, you could have them. Alternatively, you could work and save your money to buy those things you felt (and it was your choice) were more important.

 

I pit my family first. My choice. Others put themselves (and the flash car, expensive holidays etc) first. Their choice.

 

Some do that. But in terms of earning they may have earned more than you. You may have behaved more virtuously in your own opinion but that is subjective. If the objective measure for determining who had earned their rights was money would you be happy if somebody earning more than you, but perhaps behaving recklessly with their money, had more rights and privileges?

 

So how would you measure it? And how would it be policed? Once you get into these kind of arguments the case for a universal level of human rights becomes compelling. The real debate is where that level should be. Obviously the Tories place that level some way below EU human rights directives while other parties broadly agree with the EU human rights directives. A fundamental right is economic freedom but some posters on this thread would seem to want to take that right away from poorer people or at least dilute it - not a healthy viewpoint IMO.

Edited October 12, 2012 by I1L2T3

[I1L2T3 10]

I was poor once. I wasn't prepared to stay poor.

 

Being impoverished is one hell of a motivator!

 

There's a world of difference between 'Not having as much as the guy next door' and being poor.

 

You could end up poor again. You don't know what is around the corner. Lots of comfortably-off people in Argentina were put into the gutter when their economy crashed. The same is happening in Greece. Many of them never imagined they would end up like that. Few people are immune from it, only the seriously rich.

[Cyclone 10]

Not if it means forcing them to work, perhaps taking away their freedoms and taking away their human rights.

 

I don't get how this is "forcing" anyone to work.

 

My employer doesn't pay me if I don't work, does that mean I'm forced to work?

[I1L2T3 10]

I don't get how this is "forcing" anyone to work.

 

My employer doesn't pay me if I don't work, does that mean I'm forced to work?

 

It would be forced if they had no other option, e.g. if the government sanctioned that they live and work in one of conrod's centres.

 

If the centres were voluntary nobody would volunteer IMO, unless of course we were to wind back 100 years of economic progress and give people no other rational choice.

[Cyclone 10]

True, but I think the implication was "or not be given benefits".

 

And since benefits are effectively cash that's exactly the same deal working people make with their employer isn't it? Exchange labour for cash, or choose not to and don't get any cash...

[I1L2T3 10]

True, but I think the implication was "or not be given benefits".

 

And since benefits are effectively cash that's exactly the same deal working people make with their employer isn't it? Exchange labour for cash, or choose not to and don't get any cash...

 

Not be given what benefits? If you take housing benefit most claimants are low waged workers. If conrod's state-industrial complex required workers could situations be engineered where people were forced to provide their labour unwillingly in order to maintain output.

 

Anyway, it seems that nothing like this will happen any time soon. When universal credit comes in there will be a requirement for jobseekers to spend 35 hours a week doing job search. They would not have time to do work for the government.

[TJC1 10]

True, but I think the implication was "or not be given benefits".

 

And since benefits are effectively cash that's exactly the same deal working people make with their employer isn't it? Exchange labour for cash, or choose not to and don't get any cash...

 

I agree partly with what you are saying. We all have a choice...

On the other hand..

We decide to keep welfare and have a welfare system that works or we do away with govt intervention and we don't . I don't think having half measures works and that is what this govt are doing, effectively 'taxing' the least well off in society, cutting the bread and butter benefits / training / education and and making it very hard to get into employment / opportunities, if they even exist, which they don't.

 

I'm of the school that says you must create your own job. I accept this deal.

However, I'd like to see more benefits for people who actually want to work / start Businesses. Much more help and reward for getting off your ass and doing something. Less stick mentality and more carrot.

[Titanic99 10]

It only has a double-meaning under your appreciation of the subject/matter.

 

Conventionally, 'earned' means just that, i.e. as a contrary to 'given', 'gifted' or 'stolen'.

 

I don't agree, there are two conventional interpretations for the word "earned".

 

Joe "earned" £500k per year is a conventional reflection of his renumeration.

 

Joe worked hard today and "Earned" his money is a conventional reflection of how hard he worked and deserving of his money he was.

 

The problem I have is that people seem to link the two together, you can earn a figure in a renumeration sense, but not in the deserving sense and getting people to differentiate between the two is very difficult on this forum.