How would a right wing person help the poor/needy?

[unbeliever]

I'm sometimes categorised as right wing although the term is ambiguous to the point of being almost useless. It depends on what is under discussion.

 

I don't think that raising income tax on top earners is a good idea. Mainly because I think it leads to a simultaneous drop in revenue and economic output, so even if it seems right in principle it's stupid.

 

I'm in favour of high education spending. I don't care how it's funded, but it needs to be available to everybody. Crucially education needs to be optimised for the actual vacancies in the economy. I don't want to subsidies a million arts students for example.

 

Some people are incapable of completely supporting themselves and their children through no fault of their own. They should receive generous support and should not be made to feel bad about it.

Some people are capable (perhaps after training) of supporting themselves and making a larger contribution to society. They should do so. If they refuse, then I want them to have a substantially lower standard of living than the group in my previous paragraph.

 

The trick is distinguishing the first group from the second. The government has made an attempt at this and done extremely badly in all sorts of ways that a one-eyed muppet would have seen miles off.

It needs to be done though.

[petemcewan]

I think this report will add support to your "innocent people".https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3049-massive-survey-majority-believe-dwp-causes-and-covers-up-claimant-deaths

[El Cid]

The trick is distinguishing the first group from the second. The government has made an attempt at this and done extremely badly in all sorts of ways that a one-eyed muppet would have seen miles off.

It needs to be done though.

 

We should accept that it is impossible, without putting CCTV outside every claimants house. Will Labour be able to get a better checks system?

If people are living normal lives, bringing up children and going shopping, going on holidays, then there is a possibility of some work, but the people must want to do it.

[unbeliever]

We should accept that it is impossible, without putting CCTV outside every claimants house. Will Labour be able to get a better checks system?

If people are living normal lives, bringing up children and going shopping, going on holidays, then there is a possibility of some work, but the people must want to do it.

 

Perhaps that's the key difference. To me, it is not acceptable for the capable to choose not to work.

 

Don't forget that handing out taxpayers' money on the undeserving (those who are capable but choose not to make the effort) means substantially less money available for other things which I know are important to you. Education, benefits for the deserving, healthcare.

It's essentially theft to claim benefits when you can do otherwise.

[El Cid]

Perhaps that's the key difference. To me, it is not acceptable for the capable to choose not to work.

 

 

Very, very few choose not to work, they might exaggerate to claim a little more, just like everyone gets away with what they can when filling out a tax return.

[unbeliever]

Very, very few choose not to work, they might exaggerate to claim a little more, just like everyone gets away with what they can when filling out a tax return.

 

I pay all my taxes. As should everybody else.

People who "exaggerate" to claim "a little more" money from the taxes I pay belong in prison.

 

It's not just a matter of choosing not to work. In some cases it's choosing not to work full time, or choosing to work below your ability and top up with tax credits.

[Ted Heath]

From each according to his/her ability to each according to his/her need. This is often cited as a socialist ideal. Actually, as a Tory it is one I broadly subscribe to.

 

It is when need is exaggerated or when contribution through tax or otherwise is avoided that we differ.

 

Need does not mean desire. Help should be for the period it is needed not forever, unless the recipient is, for whatever reason, incapable of work or similar contribution to society. Then they should be supported.

 

The citizen should seek to do what he can for the greater good of society, the citizen should not seek to benefit unfairly from the efforts of others.

 

This it seems to me, is the difference between left and right in our country.

[unbeliever]

From each according to his/her ability to each according to his/her need. This is often cited as a socialist ideal. Actually, as a Tory it is one I broadly subscribe to.

 

It is when need is exaggerated or when contribution through tax or otherwise is avoided that we differ.

 

Need does not mean desire. Help should be for the period it is needed not forever, unless the recipient is, for whatever reason, incapable of work or similar contribution to society. Then they should be supported.

 

The citizen should seek to do what he can for the greater good of society, the citizen should not seek to benefit unfairly from the efforts of others.

 

This it seems to me, is the difference between left and right in our country.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

If you go back a century or too, the "left" wanted to reach the goal of the system you describe. The "right" sought to selfishly deny them this.

This point has long since been passed. Now the "left" want to just hand out other peoples money regardless of need or any other consideration and the "right" are just trying to moderate this lunacy.

[DnAuK]

This is why I think the public sector should employ them, the private sector needs to make money and the public sector don't.

 

Considering a good number of our local public sector employees (300 from HMRC, 250 from Business and 400 from the council) are currently facing losing their jobs to meet Government austerity measures, I'm not sure I can agree with this.

 

I have a colleague who is dyslexic. Given the nature of our work and the need for him to have assistance to do his job (screen reader software, proof reading etc) he produces on average about half of what I and the rest of my colleagues do per week. Yet he has been here longer than many of us so earns a higher basic wage than we do due to progression. Do I care about that? No. I get what I consider to be a fair wage for what I do so it is unimportant to me that someone else gets paid more for doing less. In the grand scheme of things I sometimes get bonuses for productivity so on average probably end up earning more. Which is possibly as it should be.

 

However, he was also the subject of a guaranteed interview scheme, because of his disability. And will be the same when it comes to finding other work. Would I or any of my colleagues feel a little aggrieved if he found a job ahead of us due to 'positive discrimination' of his disability? Maybe.

 

Would you?

[sutty27]

Considering a good number of our local public sector employees (300 from HMRC, 250 from Business and 400 from the council) are currently facing losing their jobs to meet Government austerity measures, I'm not sure I can agree with this.

 

It would be self funding so wouldn't actual cost anything about what we already spend on benefits.

 

I have a colleague who is dyslexic. Given the nature of our work and the need for him to have assistance to do his job (screen reader software, proof reading etc) he produces on average about half of what I and the rest of my colleagues do per week. Yet he has been here longer than many of us so earns a higher basic wage than we do due to progression. Do I care about that? No. I get what I consider to be a fair wage for what I do so it is unimportant to me that someone else gets paid more for doing less. In the grand scheme of things I sometimes get bonuses for productivity so on average probably end up earning more. Which is possibly as it should be.

 

However, he was also the subject of a guaranteed interview scheme, because of his disability. And will be the same when it comes to finding other work. Would I or any of my colleagues feel a little aggrieved if he found a job ahead of us due to 'positive discrimination' of his disability? Maybe.

 

Would you?

 

Dyslexics are different to the norm but not disabled, the key is do something that takes advantage of your abilities.

 

If we are saying a disability is something that makes you less productive than someone else, then we probably all fit the definition.