Off Topic Political Debate

Why would anybody want to create a society where there is work to be done in order to provide anything and then say that some people who just do not want to work can do nothing and have their needs provided by others? Who wants that sort of society? It is nothing about using Daily Mail words like slackers and scroungers - it is about a decent society. In a decent society everybody who can contribute needs to. We all accept that sometimes people are unable to find work and that is what unemplyment benefit is for - but it is not a lifestyle that anyone should be able to choose. Because in today's socety we do not want anyone to starve or be homeless most of us agree that there should be benefits - paid for by those who have work - to keep those who are unable to work out of real poverty. But do you want to tell those who do work that they must pay for somebody who simply does not want to? Why would you do that? Someone who works hard wants to provide for their own family - they accept it is good to help the temporary unfortunate but why do they want to go out to work - not necessaily enjoying it to give their earnings to someone who says " I choose not to work" Makes no sense to me. Those in employment should be guaranteed a decent living wage; people who are disabled or for some other genuine reason - even just a temporary one - deserve help from their fellow man but if your choice is that you simply do not want to work then you should simply be kept out of absolute poverty - but no more.
If any of you disagree then try it out. Send me some of your money as I think I might stop providing for myself - happy with that? Didn't think so.

 

But that's what it is? It's not £40k a year, the numbers mentioned were similar to what a single person would get on benefits. It encourages people to work as you can't live off current benefits in most of the UK, but it also provides a safety net and people can't be jealous of 'scroungers', as they've received exactly the same amount. Income tax is a minor part of government revenue on average over the population, just see your taxes as contributing towards a nurse's salary rather than giving someone a few thousand pounds a year to live off.

 

If the opportunities were there for all to work and earn a decent return, all well and good but we live in an unequal society. There are areas of the UK with very high unemployment due to changes in the markets etc etc... AND there will always be a few who for whatever reason don't want to contribute to society.

I think the principle that underpins this for me is that we really don't need to live in a world where we work 40+ hour weeks and slave to pay a mortgage, it is just not necessary.

A fairer flatter society with opportunities will motivate those who perhaps have not had such good breaks...

In the interim... just as the Govt have moved to a universal pension... why not consider a universal minimum wage... it actually wouldn't cost when bedded in and would strip away a load of bureaucracy.

I prefer principles for the good of all, rather than a raft of defensive measures to protect us from the very small percentage who for whatever reason don't seek to contribute. ( The same argument actually for free movement of peoples etc)

I know won't happen in the UK in this era as we can see from the me first type politics that abound here...

 

OK - well I have made my point and nothing I have heard tells me that I want any part of such a scheme. If 50% of the population decided they liked the idea of living off the £20k (or whatever real amount it was) then the other half would be working to pay for them. Unworkable. This though is not something that you can resolve through debate - it is more a philosophy. I am closer to Karl Marx "from each according to his ability - to each according to his needs"; nothing there about getting something for nothing. Even in Commmunist countries everyone had to work.

 

In Communist countries everybody had to work Leo. This is very true, but their forms of employment were labour intensive for that reason - in the constitution of the USSR. having a job was considered as a human right. This is why for every 10km. railway line in the USSR they had nearly 20 employees, whereas Switzerland has just over 2. The assumption that you, and others, make is that there will always be shirkers ie. people who are happy to take from society without giving anything back - why do some societies appear to have more of these than others ? And why was nobody talking about apparent shirkers in the 60s or 70s ? At one time there may have been something like a 'work' ethic, call it a Protestant one or whatever. You can see from literature and paintings from the Victorian era how strong this once was, almost 'heroic' if you look at some of the paintings of Ford Maddox Brown. But this ethic has commuted itself into a 'consume' ethic, in which the only thing which matters is to appear successfull, it not seeming to matter much how you do it. Britain has turned into very much of a celebrity culture in which there is no longer any real connection between 'work' and 'success'.

 

I fully expect the Germans to have a pragmatic approach and the French to be initially spiteful.

Even Putin's party faithfuls have to work hard creating new Swiss bank accounts to hide the country's wealth.

 

You are half right SH. in that Germany will not have a spitefull attitude, however you are forgetting certain facts.
1. Germany is not going to want to appear to reward any country leaving the EU. If Britain is seen to leave without cost to itself, then it could have a knock on effect which would be more damaging to the German economy.
2. You are overestimating Britain's position - Britain is the second most important EU. nation for German exports (after France), the sixth placed in terms of imports to Germany (after The Netherlands, France, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic) and the 3rd in terms of turnover (after France and the Netherlands). Important yes, but not so essential that Germany cannot replace the British market.
3. Germany may well have a new government next year which could well have a different approach.
4. The German car industry is not the central most important branch of the German economy that it once was. For one thing its cars are not environmentally friendly.
5. You cannot expect any German government to take any steps which could harm its own nationals abroad - Of all EU. nationals in the UK. Germany is on second place after Poland.

 

Why anyone would ever think that the EU are just going to let us walk away without taking a significant hit is beyond me. Whether we recover or not is open to question, let alone how long it takes... I'd suggest decades rather than just a few years. Either way it will be a bumpy road ahead for no good reason.

 

You have no right to make a statement about assumptions I make. You use a word like shirker which in fact shows what you think of a person who does not work - that is not my term and I do not agree with it. I assume people are intelligent and many will do what is best in their interests. I am simply talking about what sort of society I want to live in. One where people are found work who want it and get paid a decent wage for it and where if for any reason they cannot work they are protected. Anyone who chooses not to work accepts that they are living off the efforts of others and so would expect less - but as a caring society we make sure that is at least subsistence. I have found retirement is good - I do not any longer face the daily grind - sensible people would only work as much as they cared to - they would not be shirkers but simply intelligent. However too many people taking that option would lead to ruin. ONly fresh air is free - everything else that we need - food, clothing and accommodation need work to create it - a decent society would ensure all its citizens contributed. The idea that some would choose to not work and leave creation of the living necessities to others is ridiculous. You cannot build a society that lets some people say they will leave weork to others but they are enetitled to beneft from it. I know of no religious or political society that has advocated such a society.

 

You say that no society has ever advocated such a thing Leo, but you are wrong - Capitalism does exactly that, it allows some not to work and leaves the creation of living necessities to others - this is what living off interest is. I used the word 'shirker' to describe anyone who chooses not to work - not to describe all of the unemployed. I also asked the question of why some societies appear to produce more of this type of person than others do. Every day on British TV. you can see some or other so called celebrity who has appeared over night without having appeared to have done much to attain that status..and this has an influence on many younger people who also want to get rich quick, but not necessarily work hard and long to get to that stage. The celebrity culture which Britain has developed (is there any other country in Europe where Victoria Beckham's wardrobe would be considered newsworthy ?) has harmfull side effects, particularly on the overall work ethic in a country.

 

Have a great weekend my fellow combatants

 

No - you are ignoring the fact that people who live off interest are living off previous earnings of those who have left the wealth to them or they have earned themselves - you cannot use anti-capitalist arguments to defend wanting a society that does not expect people to provide for themselves. Interest - whether or not you like it - is money paid to people for providing something they are willing to pay for. Not all production has to be physical. You now denigrate celebrities because you appear to suggest their "work" is less legitimate than others - yet you would have some people paid by others for not doing anything. Confused logic. Are you the person to decide whether a comedian or footballer is a legitimate worker?

No person born has the right to anything that someone else or they themselves do not willing supply. If they are the child of a wealthy person they are living of the fruits of past endeavours - even if that is only fighting a battle for someone. You do not like it - yet again you are happy for somebody to do nothing and expect them to be given the fruits of others labours. Sorry - still not convinced

 

Leo, people are already paid by others for doing nothing. This through a whole myriad of different benefits which, through a basic unconditional wage, would simply be replaced by a uniform sum for each person - the exact nature of that sum is open. Easy to administer, and therefore cheaper. The only difference to the situation now is that people working would also get it. There would be exceptions of course, just as the Queen does not receive an old age pension. The question of 'work' is problematic - because we cannot define it. We need a society in which 'work' is valued and defined. Is the person who works hard for his money not worth more than the person who speculates for his living - if a person's only purpose in life is to move money from here to there ie. into his own pocket, how is this different from playing cards for money ? And is this not more appropriately described as 'play' rather than 'work' ? We have developed into a society which rewards the player rather than the worker

 

We are repeating ourselves. People may indeed be paid for doing nothing through benefits - however they are limited in amount and time or due to disability or reason beyond a person's control. Do not use a society which you despise with money lenders and speculators as a justification for building a society of people who are not required to provide for themselves even if they could - that is nonsense. Do you like the capitlist society that in your eyes has people getting something for nothing? No - then why propose a society which encourages it?

It is just ridicuulous to pay something to people who do not need it just to claw it back. What does it achieve?
Work is doing something that someone else is willing to pay for - or is somethng you do for yourself for pleasure or to provide for your own needs. Why complicate it further? Who are we to say a person who does banking is worth more or less than a person who "works hard" (your words)? Who are we to say what is hard work? Is stress hard? Does a footballer not work hard - yet many would say he plays not works. You do not have to define work as you state. Why should we value or not value work? Is a society where people meditate so bad? - or is that work? In a capitalist society "work" is valued by what people are prepared to pay. Fair enough. Someone who needs capital to build a factory will happily pay the banker who provides the money he needs as happily as he will pay the man who physcially builds it or the person who supplies other materials (money is a material).
If a person wants to live by playing cards "professionally" that is his choice - if it supplies his needs. But the person who sits and plays cards for fun and makes no money will not have money to buy food.
Someone who wants to live has to find a way of getting his needs - he can supply them himself or buy them from others - but he has to do something to get it.

Your suggestion is a society where a person is allowed to get what he needs by demanding someone else give it to him. He can clear off. His neighbour will supply their own needs and that of their family and will not want to have to do more to supply the neighbour. Forget defining work - just consider it that a person is required to try to provide for himself. In a caring society we will help our neighbours who try to provide for themselves but cannot partly or completely. I can think of no reason however to devise a society which tells people that they can simply rely on other people to get what they want.

 

My search for a definition of work may appear somewhat philosophical, however, we need to relearn the value placed on work - how do we decide as a society who earns more and who earns less. Partly because we attach more value to some work than to others. Should time spent at work be the criteria we use ? Not really, because how can you balance an hours work by a surgeon against 40 hours by a shop assistant ? Should the level of responsibility be the criteria we use ? In this case the train driver or the airline pilot would earn more than the banker. Maybe the amount of years a person takes to learn their profession - in this case the Doctor would be the highest paid member of our society. Your claim that it depends on someone else who is prepared to pay more for your services does not stand up - this leads to footballers being able to earn more in 2 weeks than a nurse does in a year. A civilized, coherant, system has a transparent justice built into it. We can presume that in every society there is 'work' done - it is the job of the government to ensure that the work which is done is usefull and productive, and that the rewards given out for it are appropriate. What is the definition of a good workman ? Imo. it is someone who is concentrated on the product and not the rewards at the time of working - would a good doctor rather lose his fee or his patient ? If the object of the exercise is only money (ie. the reward) then it is not 'work', and by that definition the city of London is a place of 'play' not of 'work'.

 

I think you view things far too theoretically Cologne. I value a surgeon when I want an operation but he is useless when I am buying a tin of beans. Comparison is meaniningless. A shop assistant and a brain surgeon are both worthwhile. However 90 odd plus percent of the population can be a shop assistant with little training but a brain surgeon can be done by very few with a lot of training. Therefore you will have to pay more to get a person to do one rather than the other. If you must think of people as worth what they earn that is your problem. I value my wife's contribution as mother to my children and "homemaker" to use today's lingo although she was not paid a penny just as much as I valued myself who was the breadwinner. People's worth is not judged by what a society needs to pay to get them to do the job. Wayne Rooney will earn more at football than me because I have no skill and he does (?? ). It does not make him "worth more" as a person - he just earns more than i ever did - good luck to him; I am not at all bothered.

Forget the word "work" if you are hung up on it. Let us just say that each person is born needing to provide what he and his family need. How he gets it will depend on what skills he has and how many hours he spends doing it. Why you believe somebody should consider themself more important than the rest of us and do nothing to provide what he needs and rely on others to supply it for him beats me. In what universe would you design such a society.

We can argue till the cows come home over who should be paid how much for what and how to then redistribute excessive earnings or wealth from one person to the next but they do not alter the basic fact that it is each person's responsibilty to themselves and their family to do what they need to stay alive.

Would you really set up a society where some people did nothing to provide for themselves? (Do not tell me we already have that because you do not like it so you would not set one up that way).

 

please log in to view this image

 

BBC reporting of recent events is just so questionable.......

 

To be fair I have often wondered just what the correspondents opinions really are as I cannot tell.

 

There are currently stories circulating of correspondents going out and seeking to create news and then reporting it....nothing new I guess but directly linked to the Referendum and post with the Tories and fuelling the ant--Corbyn factions and under reporting of Corbyn's activities with Labour. I think due to current sensitivities people are attuned to any potential bias

Re Corbyn..... even Robinson a Tory himself was aware of it:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/nick-robinson-tackles-anti-corbyn-bias-at-the-bbc/

and more recently Michael Lyons:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rust-chairman-sir-michael-lyons-a7026006.html


A level of sensationalism seems to be creeping in, mind you there have really be some sensational events. To me I have struggled to believe Kuensberg who is now a top reporter with the BBC....