Left or Right.. politically.

[dell12]

An amusing article to say the least.

 

Some of these low paid but so-called 'high worth' jobs can be done by a chimp with a broom, while some professions require years of study, further years of ongoing professional development, and a much higher than average intelligence to begin with. Should the relative skill and training required for some occupations not have an effect on salary?

 

I certainly don't object to those more highly skilled, hard working people paid more.

 

However I feel that the value of their job should be reflected in their wages (or subsequent taxes). A banker sitting in London, betting on the collapse of a particular countries currency may very well be more skilled than a hospital cleaner, but does that skill really benefit society in any meaningful way? Are they really 'creating wealth'?

[Guest]

Lots of 'they' and 'we' in your post.

 

Do you really see it as 'them and us'? Is that why you want talented people to be taxed more - because 'they' have been more successful and earn more then less motivated people?

 

 

Would you be kind enough to explain to me how the words "they" & "we" could be substituted by other words? - I was under the impression that I was using the English language in the time honoured fashion.

 

NO - I don't see anything as "them" or "us" - not just the rich and the poor.

Society is made up of many different groups, comprised of all different shades of politics, different ethnic backgrounds, with different starts in life, different aspirations and different earning levels.

 

I said that it was fair that the rich should pay more tax than the poor - It was you who brought into the debate, "talented people" - I never mentioned talent except to say that those on the highest earnings were not necessarily particularly talented.

 

Some people who are at the bottom, are also not necessarily less motivated.

It may surprise you to learn that there are many people who are not academically bright (and even people with learning difficulties), through no fault of their own, who are doing worthwhile jobs for low wages.

 

I suggest that when you have an understanding of the real people in the real world (and not just 2 groups), then you return to the debate with something useful to say rather than question my use of 2 words.

[Conrod]

I certainly don't object to those more highly skilled, hard working people paid more.

 

However I feel that the value of their job should be reflected in their wages (or subsequent taxes). A banker sitting in London, betting on the collapse of a particular countries currency may very well be more skilled than a hospital cleaner, but does that skill really benefit society in any meaningful way? Are they really 'creating wealth'?

Unless we're singing the praises of capitalism and prioritising wealth over everything else, is creating wealth really what matters?

 

That aside, where would most normal house owners be now without a bank to give them a mortgage? Or to loan them the money they need when their gas boiler breaks down and needs replacing? Or to provide financial indemnity for the company that insures their car? Or to send money to a company abroad they want to buy a book from?

 

The world as we know it would not work without banks - they facilitate all wealth creation for all industries..

[Conrod]

Society is made up of many different groups, comprised of all different shades of politics, different ethnic backgrounds, with different starts in life, different aspirations and different earning levels.

Indeed it is – and some of those people are in jobs which are worth high salaries, while some are not worth even being paid the current minimum wage.

I said that it was fair that the rich should pay more tax than the poor - It was you who brought into the debate, "talented people" - I never mentioned talent except to say that those on the highest earnings were not necessarily particularly talented. Some people who are at the bottom, are also not necessarily less motivated.

Perhaps, but on the whole it is bright, energetic people who do well and earn more.

It may surprise you to learn that there are many people who are not academically bright (and even people with learning difficulties), through no fault of their own, who are doing worthwhile jobs for low wages.

Really? You don’t say, I am so surprised! Yes, they may be doing worthwhile jobs – I don’t disagree that we need people to stack shelves and clean toilets, but worthwhile or not such tasks are very simple, require almost no skill and can be done, as you say, by the least capable among us. Such low-skilled jobs attract low wages for good reason – anybody can do it.

I suggest that when you have an understanding of the real people in the real world (and not just 2 groups), then you return to the debate with something useful to say rather than question my use of 2 words.

Well, I’ll try to discover if there are more people in the world than ‘them and us’, if you try to be less envious of people who are better off?

[TJC1]

Indeed it is – and some of those people are in jobs which are worth high salaries, while some are not worth even being paid the current minimum wage.

Perhaps, but on the whole it is bright, energetic people who do well and earn more.

Really? You don’t say, I am so surprised! Yes, they may be doing worthwhile jobs – I don’t disagree that we need people to stack shelves and clean toilets, but worthwhile or not such tasks are very simple, require almost no skill and can be done, as you say, by the least capable among us. Such low-skilled jobs attract low wages for good reason – anybody can do it.

Well, I’ll try to discover if there are more people in the world than ‘them and us’, if you try to be less envious of people who are better off?

 

Just starting to realise that its not what you know, its who you know. At the end of the day if you go to public school, come from a wealthy family and exist in that network life presents far more opportunities then if you were brought up on a council estate.

Its not a level playing field, its not always the bright, energetic and capable that get the best jobs.

[Conrod]

Just starting to realise that its not what you know, its who you know. At the end of the day if you go to public school, come from a wealthy family and exist in that network life presents far more opportunities then if you were brought up on a council estate.

Its not a level playing field, its not always the bright, energetic and capable that get the best jobs.

I strongly disagree. Perhaps 50 years ago - 30 even - what you say here would be right, but today it really is much closer to being level.

Anybody, from any background can get to university now. That's fair and level, and employers look at ability not on who daddy knows. Of course there will always be a few cases where family contacts lead to opportunities - but doesn't that happen at all levels?

[TJC1]

I strongly disagree. Perhaps 50 years ago - 30 even - what you say here would be right, but today it really is much closer to being level.

Anybody, from any background can get to university now. That's fair and level, and employers look at ability not on who daddy knows. Of course there will always be a few cases where family contacts lead to opportunities - but doesn't that happen at all levels?

 

Mate. Take a look at the three leaders of the political parties. Tell me what they all have in common.

Now tell me did any of them come from disadvantage backgrounds?

[Conrod]

Mate. Take a look at the three leaders of the political parties. Tell me what they all have in common.

Now tell me did any of them come from disadvantage backgrounds?

Or perhaps you should take a look at the whole list of members of Parliament and you will see that a great many of them have come from nothing.

 

Prescott made Deputy PM - and that was despite being a moron.

[TJC1]

Or perhaps you should take a look at the whole list of members of Parliament and you will see that a great many of them have come from nothing.

 

Prescott made Deputy PM - and that was despite being a moron.

 

Proves my point. Prescott is an exception to the rule. Its not a coincidence the mayor of London and the PM come from similar backgrounds. You find a lot of people in 'power' will have an Eton (or similar) background. This is beyond the aspirations of the majority of people.

 

Im not saying people shouldnt try but to deny theres a class divide in this country is denying the truth.

[sharrowman]

despite all the discussion on this thread, not one poster has pointed out that KellieB's original thread makes very little sense.

 

The opening paragraph is garbled nonsense, what does it mean?

 

"Who pays the most for being left, the right? Do the left just rely on taxing the aspirational who make something of themselves to also get on themselves on the back of the inspirational who use their own money to fund advances that give the less inspirational the chance of a job that they will eventually throw it back in their face due to union intervention, who never lose a days pay even though its on average five times the workers pay they presume to represent with zero mortgage interest and bonuses. Not to mention the gilt edged pensions.... not very socialist like."

 

Full of false dichotomies, hyperbole, prejudice, weird non-sequiters and tired partisan feeling.

 

Themes that have been largely continued in the confused pseudo political meanderings that have followed it.

 

Depressing.