Would you support this policy?

[osymandus]

Yeah, Pol Pot had the right idea. The way to stop the gap between rich and poor is to turn the economy back to the dark ages. On an agrarian collectivist economy (particularly if you start killing the intellectuals who might figure out how to make life better for themselves) there's no gap between rich and poor. Much fairer than the West at the moment, when if people do well for themselves they may be able to buy a third or fourth car, instead of the mere two cars that a not so well off family would have.

Or we can stop idolising and pinning concepts such as "leader" or "ruler" on one person and take responsibilty for our own actions .

Hence teh likes of Pol Pot would have been stopped in his trakes ,and people can choose to stay in a society they want to live and work in and not be forced to stay with in it by people who think their jolly succeful for accumilating lots of credit and bits of metal and plastic to show off to others .

How about offering people a chance to just leave on mass ??
History shows it works (well kind of Austalis , America , oh dear maybe not)

Maybe if people relasie they have a greater control and affect they have on their own lives and everyone else's they might just think ooh why am i working//stealing/occuring more then i need to survive .

 

[MK Shrimper]

Yeessss.... At no point did I shout communism.... I'm just talking about a bit more fairness, where the rich pay their fare share into society rather than hiding it away from the eyes of the tax man by the use of tax loopholes and secret accounts.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Yeessss.... At no point did I shout communism.... I'm just talking about a bit more fairness, where the rich pay their fare share into society rather than hiding it away from the eyes of the tax man by the use of tax loopholes and secret accounts.

So you accept that a widening gap between rich and poor is irrelevant?

 

[osymandus]

So you accept that a widening gap between rich and poor is irrelevant?

Can't be as , those who are "rich" have the ability to dictate policies and procedure of the society they live in.

 

[MK Shrimper]

It's irrelevant to a point - there's always been super-rich. But it's the gap between the uneducated "underclass" and the educated middle-class that is the real problem.

A kid born on a inner city council estate has little chance of escape - 50 years ago there were working class jobs / apprenticeships where with hard work you could make something of yourself. These jobs don't exist anymore.

the the super-rich paying more of their share we could perhaps re-address the balance with investment in these terrible sink estates that are no more than crime and drug ghettos.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

It's irrelevant to a point - there's always been super-rich. But it's the gap between the uneducated "underclass" and the educated middle-class that is the real problem.

A kid born on a inner city council estate has little chance of escape - 50 years ago there were working class jobs / apprenticeships where with hard work you could make something of yourself. These jobs don't exist anymore.

the the super-rich paying more of their share we could perhaps re-address the balance with investment in these terrible sink estates that are no more than crime and drug ghettos.

Not quite sure what you are getting at when you say a gap between what you call the uneducated "underclass" and the educated middle-class.

The two potential issues here, as far as I can see, are equality of opportunity and poverty. I don't consider poverty to be relative to the super-wealthy or the "educated middle classes", but a fixed line. Its therefore irrelevant whether the super-wealthy or the middle classes get richer, its about having enough to provide food and shelter. Equality of opportunity may be an issue, but unequal outcomes isn't.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Oh god, this is now sounding like a Microeconomics lecture!

 

[osymandus]

Oh god, this is now sounding like a Microeconomics lecture!

Indeed , but would that not show that if teh wealth is shared by a small minority. Does that not restrict the flow of resources and opportunity to those "under" them ?

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Indeed , but would that not show that if teh wealth is shared by a small minority. Does that not restrict the flow of resources and opportunity to those "under" them ?

*** [runs away before brain implodes] ***

:eek:

 

[Napster]

Indeed , but would that not show that if teh wealth is shared by a small minority. Does that not restrict the flow of resources and opportunity to those "under" them ?

resources are always scarce. the lessons of economics are how best to allocate them.

it doesnt restrict the flow, unlress there are barriers to that wealth/minority. the essence of free trade is that the reduction of barriers increases chances of wealth.

 

[NZamba Legend]

I haven't bothered to read all this thread but I thought I'd post an inane comment anyway.

If people dont fancy working I dont see why they should. In fact, I think the government should actually incentivise laziness by increasing benefits and reducing the endless red tape that currently discourages thousands of would-be layabouts trapped in an endless cycle of work drudgery. Being unemployed opens up a world of opportunities. It gives people time to tend a garden, watch videos, read books, attend mid-week away games, improve their long distance running, learn to play a musical instrument, ride their bike and think about whatever they choose.

To fund this scheme David Cameron and his Eton buddies should simply pay a higher rate of tax. This would not stifle the economy but actually, in my view, give it breathing space. I dont know if my scheme would work and I guess it probably wouldn't but thanks for reading anyway.

 

[londonblue]

They are getting a wage - Their unemployment benefits. They are now just working for it.

But you're still classing them as unemployed. Why not just employ them? And if you do so, as Keynes would suggest, all well and good. Just don't employ someone and insist on still classing them as unemployed.

And what happens when your so called job becomes more attractive than a person's current job, would you advocate them moving jobs without even an interview?

 

[DTS]

But you're still classing them as unemployed. Why not just employ them? And if you do so, as Keynes would suggest, all well and good. Just don't employ someone and insist on still classing them as unemployed.

And what happens when your so called job becomes more attractive than a person's current job, would you advocate them moving jobs without even an interview?

Well I cant see it reaslly matter what they are called but fine -they are employed by a goverment scheme until such point they can return to more tradtitonal employed work.

And as my new scheme will pay minimum wage and will after a years service be 6 days a week and offers nil holidays then I would be amazed if this is a better option for anyone that there current role.

 

[Napster]

Well I cant see it reaslly matter what they are called but fine -they are employed by a goverment scheme until such point they can return to more tradtitonal employed work.

And as my new scheme will pay minimum wage and will after a years service be 6 days a week and offers nil holidays then I would be amazed if this is a better option for anyone that there current role.

you still havent said how you will counteract the problems of full employment, like inflation and higher taxes.

 

[Benfleet A1]

And if they don't get "hand outs" what then? They won't starve - out of desperation, people would turn to crime and end up being locked up in already over populated prisons.

All very well to bang on about this when you live in the comfy South Dave, try telling this to some poor sod who lives in the @rse end of Wales where once there were jobs in manufacturing (before they got shipped off to China) or in mining until (I bet) a certain hero of yours destroyed entire communities by closing down productive pits.

Mind telling us all just how many productive pits are still available in the UK. It is a bit rich that the Tories are blamed for shutting down mining pits but Labour has made no attempt to reopen them. And more manufacturing jobs have gone abroad in the last 10 years under Labour than ever did under the Tories.

And before we all try to turn this around into a anti tory, we all hate Thatcher thing, she took us into a popular war over The Falklands as did Major over the first Iraq gathering. Messers Blair and Brown did not. Funny isn't it, Thatcher left Westminster some 17/18 years ago yet she is still being blamed for stuff that is blatently the fault of this govenment yet some still insist on blaming her and the Tories. Whats the matter? The Labour dream and visions of John Prescott dancing to 'Things Can Only Get Better' not looking so good after all?

Considering that the country is potless and Brown's policies and 'Golden Rules' now being abandoned I would say that New Labour are no different from Old Labour, a bloody shambles.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

For my two penneth on this thread is that,

1) isnt the problem a lot of our menial jobs are considered below alot of the young so why they prefer to go on the JSA then do some ****e job, which means we need to get in the immigrants to take these essential jobs??

2) by taxing the rich would this not cause them to leave this country, ergo we lose all chances of taxing them? After all it is human nature to want to keep as much as what is yours.

Also it is not just the rich that find ways of dodging paying what they should!

I guess the only people who get stung are the people who are not proactive to do anything about it. I count myself in this, I am sure there is ways I could maximise my income but do not do anything to play the numbers game.

I am a believer that one group should not be penalised over another, so i would be happy for everyone to be taxed the same %. Which after all is the fairest method, why penalise someone because they have been successful? Does this not breed people not to aspire?

 

[Desert Shrimper]

Well I cant see it reaslly matter what they are called but fine -they are employed by a goverment scheme until such point they can return to more tradtitonal employed work.

And as my new scheme will pay minimum wage and will after a years service be 6 days a week and offers nil holidays then I would be amazed if this is a better option for anyone that there current role.

As I recently discovered you are a fully fledged northerner having spent your formative years with a Hovis loaf up your arse I'm amazed at your attitude to unemployment Dave. Surely some sympathy for your northern brethren wouldn't go amiss?

 

[SUFCLiam]

Yes I fully support this polciy.

 

[Hotman]

i fully agree, and napster i am convinced he would have a tight reign on fiscal policy, after all he is a mortgage broker!

 

[londonblue]

Mind telling us all just how many productive pits are still available in the UK. It is a bit rich that the Tories are blamed for shutting down mining pits but Labour has made no attempt to reopen them.

I may have been young at the time, but even I remember the real concern over closing mines was that it would be cheaper to keep them open and only slightly profitable than to have to finance re-opening them in the future, when they would be flooded and unsafe. The reason people were upset with that Thatcher woman was because she didn't care about the long term.

I think the fact that they haven't been re-opened proves the point.

And more manufacturing jobs have gone abroad in the last 10 years under Labour than ever did under the Tories.

Probably something to do with ChIndia (as some have started calling them) becoming big players on a global scale. Something no other Government has had to deal with. Two of the biggest countries in the world where labour is exceptionally cheap are rather difficult to compete with. I don't think people in this country would be prepared/able to work for less than a pound a day.

And before we all try to turn this around into a anti tory, we all hate Thatcher thing, she took us into a popular war over The Falklands

Another part myth. The Falklands war itself was popular, but the reason she allowed a war to start and didn't nip it in the bud earlier was because she needed a war to make her popular. Judging by the opinion polls before the war, she was heading for a huge defeat.

As an aside, I wonder how much of "Blairs Iraq war" was based on this, i.e. hoping it would increase his popularity....

Thatcher left Westminster some 17/18 years ago yet she is still being blamed for stuff that is blatently the fault of this govenment yet some still insist on blaming her and the Tories. Whats the matter? The Labour dream and visions of John Prescott dancing to 'Things Can Only Get Better' not looking so good after all?

The thing is that Thatcher was in power so long that people my age (38) grew up under her. I was nine years old when she came to power, and around 20 when she left. I suspect that would be the case for most of the working population at the moment. So there is a whole generation that had their views and outlook on life defined by her. That will take at least another generation to reverse.

Considering that the country is potless and Brown's policies and 'Golden Rules' now being abandoned I would say that New Labour are no different from Old Labour, a bloody shambles.

You mean new Labour is no different from the Tories. The Tories never had these rules...old labour never got a chance to put any rules in place!