If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. People do not progress because they do not have the right skills and qualifications. The problem is that they don't have the ambition to pursue them and gain from an education.
I don't know if anybody watched the programme about Black America on BBC2 on Sunday night, but they had an interview with Rev. Jesse Jackson. He made a very powerful statement:
"The people who complain about the inequality of 'The System' and claim that it needs radical change, are missing the point. The way for the young, disadvantaged person to make radical change is to get an education and change the system from the outside."
As I've said, my father is one of the well-paid Company Directors that you loathe so much. What I haven't said is how he got there. There was no nepotism or "Old Boy networks" involved. My father didn't come from a well off family. He went to the local comp, luckily passed his 11-plus and went to a Grammar school where he was beaten up for being a "swot". He still did well enough to be the first person from his family to go to University. He holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, a qualification that has pushed him so far ahead of the game that he's left plenty of "toffs" who went to Eton and Cambridge in his tracks. All this from somebody whose father (my grandfather) worked in a Post Office for most of his adult life.
That's why I think that people should be paid well for these type of jobs. Because I know the level of hard work that is required toget yourself to that position.
Go back and read the last few posts that you've made. You've called me ignorant on more than one occasion. You've claimed that I am devoid of personality. When you can't think of a good argument for a point that I've made, you simply mock me in a childish manner.
Would you like me to go on?
I have never called you ignorant, I called your idea that it's easy for people to go from living in Sunderland to London ignorant, I've called your ideas ignorant and the stereotypes encouraged ignorant - not you. You have been patronising and arrogant have launched just as many insults against me and others.
Anyway, I'm prepared to stop insulting you if you're prepared to stop insulting me. So let's just call it quits.
So you'd be prepared to accept your student loan in vouchers then? Or your wages? If people can't budget properly why not just abolish money and have tokens for everything which would have a monetary value. Then it wouldn't be degrading for those on benefits because everyone would be doing it.
The money from benefits is designed to support them in their given lifestyle, if they'd rather get Sky and go down the pub then buy fruit and veg and go to the gym then that's up to them. If you want people to eat healthily how about taking the subsidies from the CAP and giving them to supermarkets to make fruit and veg cheaper rather than giving it to farmers?
For all the sleaze of the Labour government they are nothing like as bad as the Tories.
I don't begrudge them their salaries at all, as long as they're prepared to give back a fair share in tax and 40% is just too low. You said in the the thread on transport about how we need to invest in public transport - where is the money going to come from? In short there are pressing needs for our public services and so these need to be solved by giving them the right amount of funding and that funding can only come from taxation. The free market just does not deliver an equitable and correct provision of resources hence it is the role of the state to correct these negative externalities. Once prices in the shops are proportional to income then I might consider agreeing with you that people on hundreds of thousands a year are hard done by compared to those on benefits.
So if you'd had modern textbooks, the best teaching in the world and nice facilities that would have made no difference to you at all? You may have managed to fight your way out of your disadvantages but there are many people who can't, with the right opportunities they could achieve their full potential but if they don't get these opportunities at school they cannot achieve. Compare what happens at a private school compared to an inner city comprehensive - most of the private school kids will stay on, do A-levels and go to university and go to high paying jobs, while most of the inner-city kids will leave after GCSEs and stay in some low-paid menial job for the rest of their lives. There are exceptions, there are private school educated people who manage to screw up their lives and people like you who manage to fight their way out against the odds but you are the exception and not the rule.
You pay back your student loan after you leave university, so it's no different from a bank loan in that sense. Just as the bank don't tell you what house to buy because they give you the money for your mortgage so the government therefore shouldn't tell students how to spend their money. Why would wages be ridiculous, your pay packet goes through the Inland Revenue to pay your income tax anyway so why not have it come out as vouchers for different goods instead of money? I mean we say that obesity is a national problem, you could work it like rationing during the war - so much for bread, milk, cheese, sweets and so forth to give a balanced diet. You could give out vouchers for alcohol that would equate to the recommended government intake per day, so stopping drunkeness and the associated ill effects. People on wages are just as likely to buy unhealthy food and booze and so cost the NHS millions of pounds so why not?
I do get what you're saying, you just don't seem to get that I disagree with you. Nice to see you place such a high value on people's dignity. Also don't you think you're depriving these people of the useful skill of budgeting for themselves by just giving them vouchers? How many of them actually like using the milk tokens though? They use them because they have no choice, no choice on how to spend their disposible income. There's already been a system like this, it's called Communism. You wouldn't accept this system for yourself so don't be hypocritical by suggesting it's forced it onto others.
The road fund license is there to pay for transport, if more money is needed why not raise that? Why should the rich pay more to use the same amount of road, its not as if a 10% larger salary makes your car wear out 10% more road.
It is undoubtedly easier to do well from a privately-funded school, but that isnt really the issue. People who cannot do well from state school do not have the ability to do well anyway- if you cant be bothered to do work in school, or to go to the library for further reading, then you cannot blame anyone else but yourself. You might have to work harder, but if you do not take advantage of what you get then its no-ones tough luck but your own. The cream always rises to the top.
But you still do not say why people should lose more of their money proportionally. If tax is a flat 25% then everyone loses the same proportion of their money, it all affects the same.
Also, would you be willing to give up 65% of your earnings? Would you? No darting the issue saying "I dont earn that much"- would you want to work a 40-hour week, then see 25 hours of that go to the Government to pay for New Dealers to go Go-Karting and get new suits from Burtons?
Because as you know the road licence fee is a flat rate charge just like the poll tax was and is inherently unfair because it takes a greater proportion of income from poorer people than it does for rich people. Also the road tax is not directly allocated to transport, it goes in the general pool of taxation as do most taxes. No there is no direct link but most rich people are two car households and these cars are often more powerful and produce more CO2 emissions than smaller, cheaper cars.
That is the issue. Just because you rose from bad circumstances does not mean everyone can. All these people you are generalising are different, the person at the private school has to put in much less effort to get to point X than the person from the inner city comprehensive, so that means that it is not based on ability because they didn't have the same opportunities at school and so some people have a huge handicap despite working hard which is unfair. The cream doesn't always rise to the top because of lack of opportunity to do so.
Because the costs of running a home aren't proportional to your earnings, if you buy £100 worth of shopping you can have £100 worth of shopping whether you earn £10,000 or £100,000. If costs of living in this country were proportional to income then I would agree with you but they aren't and never will be. Therefore we need a system of progressive taxation to ensure that our public services get the funding they need and that everyone can afford a basic standard of living which they couldn't under a proportional tax rate.
Yes I would, I'm no hypocrite. If I had the money to afford to pay my bills, keep food on the table and a roof over my head then yes I would be prepared to pay that tax rate. If paying an extra 25p in the pound on tax was necessary for a health service I knew would deliver a clean, quick and efficient service, if it delivered a transport system with trains that were clean, comfortable and on time, if it delivered an education system were my family could get a high quality education I would pay it. Also there would be benefits from improved quality of life for everyone and from savings from not having to go private for services like education and health.
Funny then that its only today that Blair's spin doctors have denounced Dr. Kelly as a fantasist. Funny then that Labour argue that family values are the way to go, that judges allowing burglars to taste freedom after a crime are wrong. Funny then that Blair's first statement on entering Government was that Government "should be whiter than white"- getting caught with a hooker aint whiter than white. getting caught taking brivbes from ecclestone and Hinduja, and allowing your front bench to get away with the same crime, isnt whiter than white. Endorsing a local council leader who three days later is arrested (and later convicted) for gross corruption isnt whiter than white. Catch my drift?
The road fund license is per car, not per household. A family with ten cars pays ten times as much road tax as does a family with one car. Further to this, road fund license is paid for in terms of power- a 1000cc engine pays half as much tax as a 2000cc engine. Therefore powerful cars are more expenisve to run in terms of road tax, and, indeed, in terms of petrol tax.
But why was the poll tax unfair? If a rich mans house burns down they dont call out three times as many fire engines, if a rich man has a heart attack they dont call out three times as many ambulances. Why should a rich man pay more for services simply because he is rich? It makes no sense, a rich man has more means to pay but, as you say, Sainsburys dont charge the rich three times as much to shop there simply because the rich can afford it. Why should it apply anywhere else in a capitalist egalitarian society?
Ever heard of a meritocracy? Those with the ability will get to where they belong, those who cannot be arsed to do so, or do not have the natural ability to do so, will not. Why should I care if a poor person who cannot be bothered to do the work doesnt get good grades, its not my problem, its his. And if someone doesnt have the natural ability to do well then I have no sympathy either- it is, quite simply, tough shit. Whether or not private schools educate better is a side issue, someone who is stupid will fail regardless. Someone who is lazy will fail regardless. Its called life.
Answer the question. If I took half your earnings and gave it to someone so that they could go go-karting, regardless of whtehr you could afford to or not, would you be annoyed? Because, you see, high taxation doesnt just affect the rich. The poor get hit too, when the rich decide that their hard work shouldnt go into the back pockets of the lazy. Look back at the 1970s and the Winter of Discontent, with 20% interest rates and 40% lower rate taxation. Tell me thats how you want to live, and mean it. High tax equals low dividends, low tax equals high dividends. The history indicates this, common sense indicates this. And high dividends is what Government needs in order to spend well.
Nonetheless it is not based on income which makes it unfair. Why should the poor and key workers be priced off the road?
I can't believe you think the poll tax was fair. It was a flat rate charge for every adult in a council area - say it was £5,000 someone on £10,000 would see half their income gone on the poll tax alone, not to mention other taxes while someone on £100,000 pays a twentieth of their income for the same thing. I think the sheer unfairness in that is self-explanatory. Progressive taxation makes sense - the rich can afford to pay more so they do because the poor can't afford to pay what they need to for our public services to be of a decent standard.
Yes I have, a meritocracy assumes that everyone has the same opportunities in life which they do not and hence we are not a meritocracy. If they don't do the work fair enough but suppose they work their arse off and are let down by poor teaching, inadequate resources and sheer bad luck - they are not being used to their full potential which is in economic and moral terms a waste. You should care if people aren't achieving their full potential because it harms our society which affects all of us - even you. You'd like to think money can't by you success but it can - I go to a private school and I've seen weak candidates who would do badly in certain state schools get good grades because of all the help and assistance they get in jumping through the hoops of the exam system from our teachers. Not saying these people are thick but they achieved their full potential from going to a private school when they otherwise wouldn't - how many kids in inner-city comps could do the same if they went to a private school?
I believe the "Yes, I would" in the first three lines of my reply answered your question. :rolleyes: You obviously have no comprehension of what happens on the New Deal if you think people spend their time go-karting. As you ask no I wouldn't be annoyed, in fact I'd be pleased my taxes were giving people a bit of fun and enjoyment I'm not so tight as to begrudge people some fun when I'm able to enjoy life myself. Explain how the poor get hit by higher taxes on the top end of the scale, I've never said I favour a change in the lower rates, in fact changing the lower and basic rates have made the system more progressive, i advocate extending that nature of taxation upwards not down. I look back at the 1970s and see low unemployment, no waiting lists, free school milk, no student loans or tuition fees, a working transport system and a decent income for pensioners. What does the Winter of Discontent have to do with taxing the rich more? I look at the low tax economy of the Conservative years and see uncontrollable booms accompanied by the two worst recessions since the Great Depression, millions of unemployed, underfunded and collapsing public services and being charged for things I shouldn't have to pay for. Incidentally, there were double digit interest rates for most of the Conservative years too and they weren't far off the 20% you quote. That's how I'd rather live and I mean it! (Notice the exclamation mark for emphasis). High tax = decent public services and a fair society; Low tax = crap public services and huge wealth gaps - I know which I prefer.
You're more than welcome to get in contact with me in 2023 and check my politics out then.
Don't you consider the fact that they've paid tax and national insurance, and indeed pay taxes on benefits makes them entitled to use money and not vouchers like they have the maturity to spend money for themselves and not as the nanny state tells them? Notice how you ignored my reasonable points about extending the principle to the rest of the population and on them losing the useful skill of budgeting for themselves. If they've paid for their help through the oh-so-onerous taxes you keep moaning about then surely their entitled to spend the money they contributed in the way they wish?
I've listened to everything you've said and have at least had the common courtesy to reply to your points rather than ignoring them if I can't counter them. If your posts are unclear then maybe you should look at your posting style, I'm just taking them as read and extending the principles you advocate - or do you not like that idea because it might affect you?
No corruption or hypocrisy in the Labour Government? Explain to me how Blair advocating a hard policy on reducing 'yob culture' and hooliganism, but then giving his backing to John "Iron" Prescot as he punches his way through a crowd of protestors, isn't hypocrisy?
I never said there was no corruption in the Labour government just that it was nothing like on the scale of the Thatcher/Major governments. It isn't hypocrisy, the mullet haired farmer threw the egg at John Prescott first and then he did what a lot of ordinary people would do and punch him - yes it could have been handled better and he should have ignored it but he did what a lot of other people would have done and he didn't start that fight. I don't see that being hypocritical.
How about hypocrisy then? Blair build a bus lane on the M4 to make people use public transport to work, so he gets his chaffeur-driven limousine driven down it so he doesnt ahve to queue like the rest of us. Prescott urges people to use public transport, then uses a chaffeur-driven limo to go 100 yars. the Home Office pledges a clampdown on speeding, yet Jack Straw, who was Home Secretary at teh time of the policy issue, gets clocked at 104mph on the M5 and gets away with it because of who he knows. Blair denounces yobbs regardless of provocation, then Prescott brings shame on thsi nation by attacking a protestor. Blair pledges education for all, then makes people pay an arm and a leg for university education, pricing out all but the richest. Wheres the hypocrisy? Theres none in Labour, oh no.
BUt as for the New Deal, I am quite rigth about the suits from Burtons and trips go-karting. Why should I pay through the nose for someone else to have fun when I cant? Pushing trollies at Tescos for 12 hours isnt fun, but 4 of those hours were worked BY ME for OTHER PEOPLE to go go-karting, and to get clothes bought for them by the state. Oh thats social justice.
Private education is better, but if you do not have the ability you will not do well regardless of how much someone pushes you. Look at Princess Diana, with a hugely privileged background, yet she couldnt pass her GCSEs not once, but three times. Effort is rewarded in this country as in any other, unfortunately to everyone is as able as each other and most people are not gifted enough to do well at A'Level or at University, in the same way that, no matter how much someone spent on coaching me football, Id never be good enough to be an England international. Or are we gonna start blaming the rich for natural injustice as well now?
As for vouchers, Id accept half my loan as food vouchers, itd make sure students eat well instead of spending all their money on take-out pizza and watered down lager. If the Government spends money on people, it is entitled to decide on what it is spent on. And Im sorry, but I dont think people should be spending all MY money on B&Hs, cider and SKY TV when I dont have enough money to pay my bills some months.
And for high tax affecting everyone, look in your history books at the 1970s. Highest rate tax was at nearly 80%, which no doubt you think is wonderful, but lower rate tax was at 35%- everyone paid more, not just those who EARNED the most money. Everyone suffered, and it will happen again. Though obviously I think you should write to Tony Blair and say that youre quite willing to pay 80% tax, I think hed be thrilled.
Perhaps I should get the Government to increases taxes to buy me something nice to make me feel better.
The M4 bus lane doesn't exist anymore, it was a bad idea anyway. But not hypocritical; it's common for government ministers to have their own cars and their own security and it is normal for them to have the way cleared for them because of the risks to their security from being stuck in a traffic jam - would Major and Thatcher have done the same? Most probably. Ditto Prescott. The speeding laws are very strange things, it all depends on the police officer who books you and the circumstances as to why you were speeding, it's not unheard of for people to not get tickets because of their circumstances and as a government minister he had good reason. Blair did not denounce self defence last time I heard which is what it was, as for "bringing shame on this nation" another melodramatic statement - most people saw it as a joke and an entirely normal reaction. I agree with you on the university education but if we had the right levels of taxation it wouldn't be necessary to make people pay and it would be cheaper per head as the costs would be spread out - you end up paying for it one way or another.
What would you expect the unemployed to go to job interviews in? Shellsuits? Surely they need these suits to stop them being the parasites on benefits you think they are and re-enter the workforce. I don't consider a day out go-karting any worse than any of the other jollies funded under the guise of "corporate hospitality" - a day out go-karting is a lot cheaper than a box at the new Wembley. If you hate your job so much why not change and do something like temping? Just because you hate your job doesn't mean you have to vent your bile on the unemployed, who under current laws are forced into work if there is any available lest their benefits are cut off.
That's my whole point, the kids who go to private school have their ability nurtured and encouraged how many kids who have the ability slip through because of the fact that they don't get the resources devoted to private school kids? Fact is private school is designed to get kids the best grades hence why people pay money to go to private school hence private school kids are lifted up beyond someone of equal natural intelligence in a state school. The problem is not the rich it is the fact that state schools do not have the resources of private schools and this should be rectified and the only way we can have a genuine meritocracy is to get the rich to pay for a state education that can match that offered by the private sector.
If I went into Sainsbury's with a general food voucher what's to stop me buying a pack of Stella and a microwavable pizza? Vouchers are hardly a guarantee that people would spend their money properly so it would be a futile and bureaucratic structure, you couldn't control what people spent the money on while denying them the right to get the goods they want to buy - no-one wins. It's not "all your money" stop being so melodramatic. If you were knocked down you would go to an NHS hospital, you went to a state school, I assume there are people in your family who recieve the state pension - that is what your taxes pay for. Incidentally they'd be taxed on the B&H, cider and Sky TV anyway through cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and VAT respectively so they are self-funding most of their costs on these products as they pay it in these taxes it comes back to them as benefits.
Yes but if you'd read what I actually said about tax earlier in this thread. I explained that I believe in a progressive tax system. The levels on low and medium wage earners in the 1970s were too high but the principle of you pay more as you earn more is totally justified and one I agree with. If I was on a million quid salary and had to pay 80% taxes that'd still leave me with £200,000 disposible income - don't you think that's enough to be going on with? I imagine Blair would be horrified if I wrote to him suggesting higher tax, Gordon Brown and Peter Hain on the other hand....
Edited because I didn't reply to a paragraph.
Why don't you go and seek some NHS treatment in a busy inner city hospital and see the effect of the low taxes you so desire.
Hope your thumb is better soon so I can hear your points.