The politics of envy' is usually a cheap shot used by Tories because they can't understand that not everyone is as selfish as they are.
It is a strange response to folk saying they want a fairer spread of resources in the world.
I have a vision of these people screaming at their kids. One is hogging the sweets and there these parents sit berating the other child, who wants a reasonable share, as suffering from the politics of envy. Its a really weak argument to put it mildly- its poor. I can see why they do not try and defend that scenario though but attack instead.
It's all about priorities.No Tory claims "you can't pay for Trident replacement if the economy is bust".
+ many
We have money they wont use it to help the little people.
[i]claimed that you can't pay for the NHS and the welfare state if the economy is bust. The fact that the NHS and the welfare state were created at a time when Britain was bust proves that to be nonsense.[/i]
No, it proves that things were different then and most of us have moved on.
OH, I get it, you want us to go back to the 1940s, cos them was the good ole days...
😯
[i]It's all about priorities.[/i]
Funny that, I thought it was about funding, money. You did catch Dear leader milliband's speech the other day. IIRC, He seemed to think he needed more money for the NHS...
@ernie, Trident costs much much less than the NHS, what is it £3bn a year versus £130bn ? As someone else posted the cost of the NHS back in the 1940's was a fraction of what it is now on an absolute and relative basis.
@Northwind, there are people who chose to work part time. Its no surprise average earnings are falling as the 100,000's of financial services jobs which have been lost where relatively well paid ones. In terms of job creation surely its better to have more jobs created at lower wages than fewer jobs created at higher wages. One benefits more people than the other, no ? There should be tighter controls on the labour market and IMO an end to zero hour contracts but those existed under the prior government too.
OH, I get it, you want us to go back to the 1940s, cos them was the good ole days...
You can be impressively childish Solo.
you want us to go back to the 1940s, cos them was the good ole days...
Worst straw man ad hom ever
Its not what he said and it is not even close. Worse, it is not even funny.
[i]You can be impressively childish Solo. [/i]
From the person willfuly ignoring the fact that we now live in the 21st century and instead is using a unique situation from the distant past, as an example to follow, today.
Childish ?
[i]Worst straw man ad hom ever
Its not what he said and it is not even close. Worse, it is not even funny. [/i]
Junky, today's self appointed Referee and model of impartiality.
😆
The Tories ideology has always been to encourage and reward work.
So why are they making the working poor poorer?
You are overusing the emoticons and sarcasm to make up for the lack of fact in your initial point and no counter to my facts either.
to repeat
Its not what he said and it is not even close. Worse, it is not even funny.
X2 now and counting
jambalaya - Member@Northwind, there are people who chose to work part time.
Of course there are- but they're not underemployed. The numbers I quoted aren't for part time workers, they're for people working part time who want to work full time.
It's interesting the views that Tories are selfish, if we just assume, for a moment, that the average Troy voter is better off than the national average then they are actually the most generous as they are paying the most tax. The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes and all that .. they can hardly be selfish, they are bearing a heavy tax burden for the greater good of the nation, no ?
The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes and all that .. they can hardly be selfish, they are bearing a heavy tax burden for the greater good of the nation, no ?
The poorest quintile pays a greater share of its income in tax, than the other quintiles.
So it's no surprise to see the Tories pursuing a policy that will make them even worse off.
It's interesting the views that Tories are selfish, if we just assume, for a moment, that the average Troy voter is better off than the national average then they are actually the most generous as they are paying the most tax.
An interesting way of viewing things.
they can hardly be selfish, they are bearing a heavy tax burden for the greater good of the nation, no ?
Yes, they are clearly doing it for the love of the nation. 🙄
[i]X2 now and counting [/i]
So this is the best you can do, so, you're pedantic. As if we didn't already know this.
Pity you don't understand that I don't care what you post.
😀
[i]Yes, they are clearly doing it for the love of the nation.[/i]
Precisely, hence they vote for the conservatives. You should try it.
That makes your view of Israel look grounded and reasonable.
Replying to every post I have made on this issue is clearly the best way to show that you dont care.I don't care what you post.
@ransos - this is where some of these stats make no sense. The poorest are getting the same benefit from the NHS, education, police etc as everyone else but they are not actually paying the full price for it, no where near. We now have a pretty generous £10k limit before any tax is paid and there is no tax on food (unlike France) or rent and low tax rates on gas/electric (unlike France). We have a very generous system already.
[i]Replying to every post I have made on this issue is clearly the best way to show that you dont care. [/i]
😆
No, I haven't replied to [b]every[/b] post you've made on this issue. Please be accurate and no, again, me posting that I don't care what you post, is the clearest way to inform you that I don't care. That's why I wrote it. Obviously this is all getting a bit too complicated for you.
The poorest are getting the same benefit from the NHS, education, police etc as everyone else but they are not actually paying the full price for it, no where near.
Oh come on man go the full hog will you - poorer people are a greater burden because they get ill more often than rich people. Therefore they should pay more .....they are freeloaders basically surviving of the wealth of the rich who give so much for the love of the nation.
The politics of envy - To me the continual cries of soak the rich seem to be completely devoid of any sense of fairness, in general the rich already pay a larger amount into the coffers in real terms, what is rich anyway?. In London 60k a year is hardly touching the sides, elsewhere it's a good wage. It seems that many people are happier apportioning blame to the rich for our supposedly unhappy state of affairs than entertaining for a second the idea that people have at least some responsibility for their own circumstances. It doesn't get away from the fact that the degrees of separation are minimal between parties and that party politics is a stupid way of running things. It's laughable that people believe for a second that Labour is the party for working people.
[i]Oh come on man go the full hog will you - poorer people are a greater burden because they get ill more often than rich people. Therefore they should pay more .....they are freeloaders basically surviving of the wealth of the rich who give so much for the love of the nation. [/i]
And then all of a sudden.... I knew it wouldn't last.
The ole Junky is back, everyone, BOOOM !
😆
From the ONS link on page 4:
[i]On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.[/i]
The politics of envy - To me the continual cries of soak the rich seem to be completely devoid of any sense of fairness,
Oh the irony
So it is fair that we have a massive disparity in earning but unfair if there is even the vaguest attempt to address this via tax.
Funny how the "politics of envy" crowd only want fair taxes and not fair wages.
Its not fair when you tax us but it is fair than I ends x 4 the national average. Why is fairness only applied on side here?
's interesting the views that Tories are selfish, if we just assume, for a moment, that the average Troy voter is better off than the national average then they are actually the most generous as they are paying the most tax.
I love Tory logic!
The other argument is the top 1 percent pay the rates they do because they should bear more of the costs of a system that allowed them to become wealthy.
Most of them wouldn't survive in a taxless anarchy. The state is an instrument used to appease the poor and stop them from murdering the rich in their beds, over the course of history groups such as the french aristocracy and middle eastern dictators have forgotten this.
[i]Most of them wouldn't survive in a taxless anarchy. The state is an instrument used to appease the poor and stop them from murdering the rich in their beds. [/i]
Wow, I couldn't make this shit up. This thread is going to have me chuckling on my trip home, comedy gold.
😉
So someone works in a bakers as a shop assistant and earns 18k a year, someone else works as an estate agent and earns 250k a year.
This, apparently, is wrong. Why? Why should the tax burden be proportionally more for the higher earner I don't get it. It we applied a flat rate of 20% to both with a 10k threshold would that be fair?
Interesting to note the terminology being used in this thread. The Tory apologists are referring to actually paying their tax as an act of 'generosity'.
Sort of says it all really
This, apparently, is wrong. Why?
Estate agents should be murdered to death no matter of politics.
What's so funny solo? Government is there to provide a framework for industry, industry needs a stable happy populace free from corruption. In democracies and even countries that aren't you have to appease the largest amount of people possible.
If people start to feel that society is unjust, then they rebel. It's within the interests of the rich to be seen to give a fair contribution to the society from which they extracted wealth from.
It seems that many people are happier apportioning blame to the rich for our supposedly unhappy state of affairs than entertaining for a second the idea that people have at least some responsibility for their own circumstances.
Do you not understand how politics in this country works? The rich donate to the political parties either in the form of personal donations or via corporations, they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts are they?
And you seem to be making out that they got there because they worked hard and the rest didn't. How bloody naive can you get. The rich now hold the rest of us back.
Tell me, does solo refer to your brain cell?Precisely, hence they vote for the conservatives. You should try it.
Shop assistants dont earn 18k a year. Its more like 9k, graduate laboratory jobs often barely pay over 18k.
It's interesting the views that Tories are selfish, if we just assume, for a moment, that the average Troy voter is better off than the national average then they are actually the most generous as they are paying the most tax.
So they are not selfish at all, that's why they vote Tory - because they want to be generous and pay more tax ?
Your sense of logic really does enter the realms of absurdity.
Maybe they did work harder? All the really minted people I've met work loads harder than I'm prepared to. Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between work and wealth. Not in 100% of cases I'll grant you but for the majority I reckon there could be something in this hard graft malarky.
The shop assistant in my example would work tax free then eh.
Surely the greatest Tory self-delusion of all: that they got where they are due to their own genius and limitless ability. Instead of nepotism, numerous inherited inbuilt advantages, and the least social mobility of any developed nation
It's as if they've convinced themselves, against all evidence to the contrary, that they live in a meritocracy.
If we actually did, then I doubt people would resent the success and wealth of those at the top. But look at the present Tory cabinet (just as one example) , and try and tell me that any of looks justified.
entertaining for a second the idea that people have at least some responsibility for their own circumstances
Can we all make it to the top then?
It is not true to claim we can all be richard branson/make it if we just tried as hard as the succesful ones have,
So someone works in a bakers as a shop assistant and earns 18k a year, someone else works as an estate agent and earns 250k a year.This, apparently, is wrong. Why? Why should the tax burden be proportionally more for the higher earner I don't get it. It we applied a flat rate of 20% to both with a 10k threshold would that be fair?
No - it would be fair if we all earned the same - until that point we should tax folk like they earn - disproportionately.
Its principle free to think differential pay is OK yet differential tax is unfair
Many folk think the tories want their cake and to eat it. IMHO you are not helping dispel this myth.
jambalaya - Member@ransos - this is where some of these stats make no sense. The poorest are getting the same benefit from the NHS, education, police etc as everyone else
Actually, not so much. Employers benefit disproportionately from the NHS, education etc compared to the employed- as an individual, you benefit once, but your employer benefits from every one of his employers being educated and healthy. Every businessman benefits from his customers, and so on. Something that seems to be unfashionable to remember now, when apparently rich people get rich purely on their own labour.
Its principle free to think differential pay is OK yet differential tax is unfair
Sorry I just don't accept that and I don't think I'm a Tory, I certainly don't vote Tory.
so what is the principle at work ? Clearly it is not fairness so what is it ?
Joolsburger.
I'm a care woker.
Halfway through yet another 60 hour week on minimum wage.
Do me a favour?
If we ever meet, please tell me again about your hard working friends.
I could do with a laugh.
Depends on your definition of fairness. That's where the variability lies. I don't think it's fair for someone to pay more tax to subsidise another to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford. I think it's fair that there is a safety net available to all to protect them from being denied the very basics in life they require. Currently the benefits system is aligned towards the former not the latter. The benefits system is not a mechanism to redistribute wealth, it's to provide a minimal provision for everyone. The problem is the tax and benefits systems have become so twisted over the decades they no longer work as they should, hence the great resentment on both sides of the debate. I have no problem paying tax, or paying more tax even, just how it's spent...or rather squandered. I certainly don't want to pay more tax into the current system.
Just out of interest, how much do you think JSA is? It's just that when the Daily Mail foam at the mouth about benefit scroungers, they generally omit any actual figures. As most people realise that 60 quid a week doesn't buy you much of the 'lifestyle' you refer too.
As has been stated many times on this thread already. The lions share of benefits doesn't go to 'scroungers', (as we must all now assume anyone unemployed most definitely is) it goes to the working poor. The people on minimum wages, who despite working full time, still can't afford to live without state subsidy. This is who Osbourne is clobbering. Without even the slightest pretence at addressing the root of the problem... Employers not paying a living wage. It's madness!
And the huge amounts paid out in housing benefit aren't a sign of a dysfunctional benefits system, they're the sign of a dysfunctional, and frankly nonsensical housing market
Heres a question for you
What would you call an acceptable differential between benefits (taking into account the entire package, ie. JSA/Income support, council tax benefit, rent, free prescriptions, school means, BT basic etc. etc.) and minimum/living wage? (eg 37 hours at living wage)
£12.50, a reach round and a thank you card from the Queen?
