Happ Hazzard Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 So why don't the left come up with a more convincing narrative? Raising taxes for the rich can only work in the short term. People's expectations of what the state can provide for them only rise, never fall. As soon as one lot of money runs out, the cry will go up for another tax rise for the rich. You can't keep doing it. After a certain point it doesn't work anymore. People in this country need to learn to live within their means. We can't keep spending money we don't have to give people lifestyles they think they deserve even if they can't pay for. If you don't work, you are going to be poor. There's nothing wrong with that, that is how it should be. Wealth is there to be earned, not given out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 So why don't the left come up with a more convincing narrative? Raising taxes for the rich can only work in the short term. People's expectations of what the state can provide for them only rise, never fall. As soon as one lot of money runs out, the cry will go up for another tax rise for the rich. You can't keep doing it. After a certain point it doesn't work anymore. People in this country need to learn to live within their means. We can't keep spending money we don't have to give people lifestyles they think they deserve even if they can't pay for. If you don't work, you are going to be poor. There's nothing wrong with that, that is how it should be. Wealth is there to be earned, not given out. Who's talking about "another tax rise for the rich"??? In both historical and international terms there's never been a more supine and reactionary Labour / left wing party. In terms of people's expectations of what the state can provide I think most young people nowadays (in contrast to their parents generation) have given up with the idea that education should be free and social housing is there if they need it. And it's not only the poor who need to live within their means. All over the western world the financial elites crashed the economy and governments of all stripes had to step in. Sure wealth has to be earned, but don't think that it's only the rich who earn the wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Do you think we'd have been better off without the "financial elites" in the first place? Despite the fact that they were paying a large proportion of taxation that allowed the public sector to go wild with their spending? People who are not wealthy do not earn the wealth. If they did, they'd be wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Do you think we'd have been better off without the "financial elites" in the first place? Despite the fact that they were paying a large proportion of taxation that allowed the public sector to go wild with their spending? People who are not wealthy do not earn the wealth. If they did, they'd be wealthy. Please try not to make it too complicated for them or their heads will explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Because benefit fraud is far far less than dodged tax money, which is the bigger problem. Of course it is easier for the rightwing press to sensationalise scapegoating the enemployed and low paid because it's unlikely to cost the tories votes. Bonuses - explain, please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Do you think we'd have been better off without the "financial elites" in the first place? People who are not wealthy do not earn the wealth. If they did, they'd be wealthy. People who are wealthy would not be wealthy if it wasn't for the poor. Generally one can't do without the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda1 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 im all for people to work but working for your dole money are they going to get help getting there and Cameron says if they haven't got a job theve got to go to dole office every single day is he for real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutch Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Give these conservatives another four years and thatcher riots may just happen again. Hahaha Cameron can jump up and down, cry, scream, do anything but the jobs are not going to come back. There are many reasons all those jobs are gone and not replaceable in our modern developed world. I do not receive any benefits and never have had any. But treating these people on dole as animals while you don't give them any food is not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Obviously havent got a clue and its for political reasons. Lots of people do voluntary work anyway. An interesting contrast is that community service is seen as a punishment for if you commit actual crimes, but the crime here will be being unemployed. Maybe they ought to pay them the minimum wage if its compulsory? Going to the dole office every day would only be possible if they gave people bus passes? The dole office couldnt cope as they don have the facilities It would be pointless unless you got access to a computer A significant number of people have access to the internet at home, so why make them travel in? Dance monkey dance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Oh, back on this idea again? It's a stupid idea and been gone over many times on here before. The major problems are. The work has to be there in the first place and if it is, why not pay them the going rate. Litter picking - will make thousands more unemployed in addition the already unemployed. Does not equip the workforce with skills. Working for an employer in a factory or office. Forcing an employer to take people they don't want, people who don't want to work there and will drive away customers, upset the rest of the work force and possibly damage equipment, annoy employers by not turning up for work etc. Schemes cost money and won't save money. Any scheme will go the same way as all the others - down the swannee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.