sh3rb3t Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I have a really good idea. We should make work pay. We should do this by making sure that those at the top don't take as much as they do now. By limiting their wealth, we could spread it around others. Then they would be able to afford to bring their kids up. Sounds much better to me than taking kids away from their parents. How does taking more tax from people who have contributed more effort and more time to their job help? Why should people who have done nothing to contribute benefit from those who have spent a good fraction of their lives working? Limiting peoples wealth does NOT make the poor richer. It may make the poor richer RELATIVE to the rich, and lessen the divide, but how does that help the poor in absolute terms? People should think before they breed. If they can't support their offspring, they shouldn't be creating any. In this modern day society, women AND men have access to contraceptives, there is little excuse (notice I said little, to account of those unfortunate events that are beyond peoples control) to have children when they cannot be offered a secure and stable upbringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coutts Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I have a really good idea. We should do this by making sure that those at the top don't take as much as they do now. By limiting their wealth, we could spread it around others. Then they would be able to afford to bring their kids up. Sounds much better to me than taking kids away from their parents. Yes, lets restrict the winners and doers of this world, lets remove all incentive for the smart, the educated and self disciplined to rise up above the clouds of mediocrity in order to make the losers feel better about themselves, who, in reality won't appreciate the help anyway and probably end up lazier than before. What will you call this new policy spike, FREE LUNCH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 Who decides that their work only contributes £6/hr? Nobody decides. If a business employs somebody to do 40 hours of work and that increases their profits by £240, then the work was worth no more than £6/hour. It's maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 How does taking more tax from people who have contributed more effort and more time to their job help? Why should people who have done nothing to contribute benefit from those who have spent a good fraction of their lives working? Limiting peoples wealth does NOT make the poor richer. It may make the poor richer RELATIVE to the rich, and lessen the divide, but how does that help the poor in absolute terms? People should think before they breed. If they can't support their offspring, they shouldn't be creating any. In this modern day society, women AND men have access to contraceptives, there is little excuse (notice I said little, to account of those unfortunate events that are beyond peoples control) to have children when they cannot be offered a secure and stable upbringing. I'm not sure whether you read my post, or just fancy a rant. I was suggesting that making work worthwhile is the way forward. There is only one way to do that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh3rb3t Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Or just parents. Please justify this statement. People who have no intention to contribute, yet have children expecting the state and taxpayers to pay for their education, healthcare, and general maintenance are SCROUNGERS. PARENTS provide for their children... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 I'm not sure whether you read my post, or just fancy a rant. I was suggesting that making work worthwhile is the way forward. There is only one way to do that.... Your approach seems to come down to paying people for work somebody else did. How is that fair. If somebody wants to be paid more they have to learn to do something more economically valuable. If they don't, and we pay them more anyway, they're receiving somebody else's pay. How is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boothybabe Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Please justify this statement. People who have no intention to contribute, yet have children expecting the state and taxpayers to pay for their education, healthcare, and general maintenance are SCROUNGERS. PARENTS provide for their children... But how many have no intention to contribute, ever, I would assume the number is relatively small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Nobody decides. If a business employs somebody to do 40 hours of work and that increases their profits by £240, then the work was worth no more than £6/hour. It's maths. It isn't maths. It is often exploitation. The profitability of a company must take into account the pay of all the workers. If the highest paid took less, profitability would increase. That is maths. The country has become far more unequal in the last decade. If you want the unemployed to work, that needs addressing. It's common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Many of us are increasingly fed up with subsidising scroungers.b I'd like nothing more than to reduce handouts to the chronically unemployed to the bare minimum they need to survive. You mean they aren't already? That's news to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Many of us are increasingly fed up with subsidising scroungers. I'd like nothing more than to reduce handouts to the chronically unemployed to the bare minimum they need to survive. The problem is that I can never actually bring myself to advocate for it because I don't want their children to suffer along with them. Any ideas anybody? I've considered various things. 1. License people to have children. Makes me rather uneasy as I'm not sure how you would enforce it and I can't help feeling that the right to reproduce is a fundamental human right. 2. Take away the children of those who can't support them and have them raised by somebody less useless. Sounds a little better but are there enough people out there willing to take on the children of the feckless? Even if there were I'm not sure I could live with this. 3. Extra benefits people get for having children could be paid using vouchers that can only be spent directly on the children. This one I have hope for. Black market problems I suppose, but still. I'm genuinely asking. I desperately want the working poor to enjoy a substantially higher standing of living than the unemployed. I also want those who have gone to the trouble of training for something above minimum wage to be substantially better off than those who have not. I just want to make sure that I'm not making the children suffer along with their parents. 1 + 2 already exist but not in the terms you are thinking about things. Parents who do not care adequately for children are at risk of having their children removed. They can't be prevented from having more children but children can be removed soon after birth. Our legal system already provides for this. What are your views on free markets for business and the size of the state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.