WeX Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 What you've offered is not an explanation but justification for the appaling gap between rich and poor; and is as self serving as the idea that to motivate rich people you need to give them the carrott, but to motivate poor people you need to give them the stick. That social mobility has decreased in recent years rather than increased is evidence of the corrosive impact of inequality. Its not justification, its the reason why there is a gap. you reap what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Perhaps one explanation why poor people are being targeted is given in the Independent today: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-wanted-to-wave-through-donors-policy-to-destroy-rights-of-workers-7593585.html#disqus_thread The article describes how Adrian Beechcroft, a donor to the Tory party and venture capitalist whose interests include Wonga.com (little more than loan sharks), wrote a report that suggested unproductive employees be immediately sacked without due process. The Liberal Democrats claim that Cameron would have implemented the proposals had the tories governed alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Perhaps one explanation why poor people are being targeted is given in the Independent today: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-wanted-to-wave-through-donors-policy-to-destroy-rights-of-workers-7593585.html#disqus_thread The article describes how Adrian Beechcroft, a donor to the Tory party and venture capitalist whose interests include Wonga.com (little more than loan sharks), wrote a report that suggested unproductive employees be immediately sacked without due process. The Liberal Democrats claim that Cameron would have implemented the proposals had the tories governed alone. I fully agree with Mr Beechcroft, why should any employer maintain staff that are unproductive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I fully agree with Mr Beechcroft, why should any employer maintain staff that are unproductive? Unproductive in whose opinion..? Basicaly your saying..if a boss doesn't like the look of someone, he can sack them and say they are unproductive....heaven help us..!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icanc4miles Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I fully agree with Mr Beechcroft, why should any employer maintain staff that are unproductive? Employers - employees, who needs who the most?? When will people like you, and those on the hard left, realise that they both need each other equally? The daft, us-and-them, tribal dividing line between the two, with the Tories representing employers/managers and Labour representing the workers, is holding this country back and tearing it apart. We need to be more like Germany and Japan, a lot less class distinction there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Drink and cigs being targeted yet again,working class people and the poor are having to put up with high rise in taxes on these.For people on good incomes its a small dent in their wallet,why are ordinary people having to suffer.I am very dissapointed in this goverment they are doing nothing for the poor,and more could be done to help the elderly and vulnerable.Thumbs down across the board for the tories. if you can afford to booze and smoke...then you certainly are not poor...a packet of fags plus a few pints adds up to about twenty quid... unless you buy them dodgy chinese ones.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's been explained before that if the Tories were only supported by the rich, they'd have a tiny percentage of the vote - not more than half. Perhaps your post would be more accurate if re-worded along the lines of Tories support those who are willing to put in some effort and contribute to the system, Labour sells its soul to the voters of the underclass who want a free ride at the expense of tax payers. The comments on this thread are unbelievable. We get a tax increase here not on essentials, but luxuries - and health-damaging luxuries at that - and the lefties interpret that as an attack on the poor. If anything, it's helping people who are too uneducated/dim/plain stupid to realise that on their limited incomes they should not be spending at all on tobacco or alcohol. Heaven help us if the lower rungs of society really do think any different. I don't call fuel a luxury, it is a neccessity for most people, not everyone can get to work on public transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I fully agree with Mr Beechcroft, why should any employer maintain staff that are unproductive? Staff can become unproductive due to a number of factors: over bearing or incompetent managers, unrealistic workloads etc - sacked with no recouse. Productive staff could also be dispensed with too, the employer might not like them but could just be got rid off. I'm not surprised that Beechcroft drafted such a regressive policy document, he does after all head up Wonga.com which charges interest of about 4000% - what else would you expect from such a man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Employers - employees, who needs who the most?? When will people like you, and those on the hard left, realise that they both need each other equally? The daft, us-and-them, tribal dividing line between the two, with the Tories representing employers/managers and Labour representing the workers, is holding this country back and tearing it apart. We need to be more like Germany and Japan, a lot less class distinction there. If only the dividing line were that clear cut. In spite of the cak you read on here, Labour probably stopped representing the workers when Blair took over and added 'New' in front of Labour; and whenever the Tories strip back employment rights or welfare it's called 'modernisation', but when Labour try to introduce a modicum of protection it's called 'class war'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Do I take your arguement to be that, assuming the figures quoted are correct, it is better to continue to permit people to drink and smoke consequently ruining their health because the exchequer takes in more tax from them than the NHS spends in treating them? If I am correct in deducing this it seems a logical conclusion to legalise all drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine etc, place tax upon them. Is this your position? I'm not sure how you got all that from my few words, I was just countering the point that alcohol should have such a high duty because it costs so much to treat the health problems. I think people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.