Only the crazy ones
Oh dear, the benefit scroungers are scared!
- Thread starter 86JR
- Start date
Only the crazy ones
Interesting.
So some elements of a meritocracy with a lesser degree of enforced balance, I know I've mentioned this before but when determining equal treatment of individuals would it not also be reasonable to extend this equality of treatment onto the distribution of the rewards of labour?.
I agree with much of what you are saying, but if we have equal treatment in taxation - then to maintain the same standards for the population (the minimum standard you speak of) I'd assume you would require more equal treatment from a wage distribution perspective (or done via taxation as a redistributive measure). As you also know, equality of opportunity is currently very low - with huge differences in the standard of education & upbringing (from an economic perspective alone) causing huge damage to social mobility, how would this be addressed? (as equality of opportunity is most certainly a measurable metric).
Last edited:
Loads do, if you live in London and claim JSA for a few months then you can get a 30% discount card for the Tube too. Never was unemployed that long through to take advantage of it through
Last edited:
Just added an additonal edit before your reply that may add some more context.
Wages are defined by the value you bring to your employer, not anything the government does, so no, I wouldn't support a reduction of freedom in this area, I would, however support a much less rigid burden structure on employment.
The bottom line is that you can't just manipulate wages in a sistainable fashion long term, the economy will always balance it out unless the outcome is a result of the consumer behaviour.
Edit to follow yours:
Equality of opportunity is enhanced by removing restrictions (such as catchment areas and prohibition of entry rules from education. Remeber that equality of opportunity is not about addressing those who fail to make good choices (such as attending the nearest school regardless of performance) but in ensuring those are not the only opportunity available. Good schools should be free to expand to meet demand, and if the consequence is closure of poor schools, that is a very good thing.
Last edited:
if i'm to take that literally, you're saying 51% or more? that's quite a statement. :/
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,068
- Location
- France, Alsace
How would one go about proving that they're on benefits though?
Just to elaborate (as it could be taken either way) - as defined by the value you bring to employer can be hugely disproportionate to the end wage given to the employee.
Position A could bring a net benefit of 50,000 per year to the company, the total wage costs obviously could not exceed this - but on the other hand where the line is drawn to determine what share is given to the employee or as profit is dependant on the business (or the equality of treatment you could say).
Otherwise, would it not be a case of being against Government tyranny via the implementation of unbalanced & unjust taxation banding - but in favour of corporate tyranny via the implementation of unbalanced & seemingly unjust reward for labour distribution banding?.
Well, the economy of course will rebalance pending on how the prices change of the goods - but I'm not talking about increases the costs, just rebalances the rewards at the existing market rate (as being an example of fair & equal treatment).
Even with removing the aspects related to catchment areas certain parts of the country have much higher living or housing costs - how will this aspect be addressed?.
By removing one of many of the barriers but allowing the others to continue is seems more of a step to give the illusion of equality of opportunity, but equality of opportunity only exists within a system with a high degree of social mobility.
Do you agree that a society which embraces equality of opportunity will also require vastly improved social mobility?.
I agree on the aspects related to schooling - both ways.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be picky - just interesting to hear a somewhat different view regarding taxation outside of the usual two side coin & want to understand how you tie up that level of reward for personal choice without damaging the opportunities of the next generation (as they are not to blame for the choices of the parents).
I do like some aspects of a true meritocracy within the capitalist system (it would be preferable to our existing methods), as based upon what I've read - simply increasing the opportunities of future generations to the average level will yield huge potential social benefits.
Indeed, it's also an incorrect one (as it's actually 73% less than a year, 52% less than six months total claim time) - which of course he would know if he actually did any research.
Last edited:
When refering to taxes, what does equal treatment mean in your view? Everyone pays the same percentage?
Letter from the dole office i believe, but as i said i never claimed it as i wasn't unemployed that long.
No, I mean less fortunate. Feel free to credit for the fact that you were lucky enough to be born to good parents who instilled a work ethic in you though... Well done you for not being 'lazy'.
So do you at least concede the parents are lazy? (for some reason the word ****less is censored, go liberal censorship!)
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,068
- Location
- France, Alsace
They prove it with Google? Christ Google is good nowadays!
So it all goes through the JC... interesting. The net says it's a mission to actually get one of these mind and only small amounts were issued. *keeps digging*
Thanks
No, I don't really agree with the term lazy and I don't really want to take this in the same direction as the "fat people = lazy" thread even though the general attitudes seem very similar. I think my last post makes my feelings on it pretty clear.
Indeed, I'd also guess also more to do with the fact that anybody who's read up on even the basics of human behaviour & psychology doesn't use the term 'lazy' as it's a subjective interpretation of another persons actions or behaviour which all have prior causal factors.
Describing behaviour as lazy is intellectually void & ironically 'lazy'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
That is exactly what I am saying, yes.
These statistics do not refute my claim.
Firstly, I did not specifically reference JSA. I don't have time to find current values, but as of the middle of 2013 there were twice as many people on long-term sick as there were claiming JSA. So already your figures are diluted significantly.
Secondly, someone could refuse employment for five months and eleven months, then on the sixth and twelfth month accept something. Your statistics do not address this possibility, and if it wee true (as I'd argue from anecdotal evidence that it is) then it would support my claim.
Thirdly, regarding your earlier point that I am not a doctor. This is really rather irrelevant, is it not? The vast majority of those claiming disability benefits have not had their case reviewed anyway. You've no better an idea than me whether these claims are legitimate. However as they have increased three-fold in the last twenty years and we've not experienced a three-fold increase in population, one has to consider the possibility that something is going on.
For the record, what social class would you define yourself as, did you come from a working class area? If you did, I find it hard to imagine how you can be so oblivious to the rampant abuse of our welfare state.
I don't care about anecdotal evidence.
The statistics do imply that a majority (over 50%) of claimants for JSA are not long term claimants (which as a by-product implies they found employment) - which gives an alternative account to what you suggested.
You have to split job-seekers & the long term sick/disabled - as one we have clear data for (JSA) the other we don't, so if you would like to correct your statement into specifically being about the long term sick that would be great thanks.
Then if you could provide some justification or data to support that view I'd love to see it.
I don't recognise the UK class system as being valid so have put little thought into it.
The welfare state is being abused by some of course, but - if it's rampant or not is another matter - one which both the claimants & the government will be equally complicit if it is the case (assuming it's not fraud related, but we do have the statistics for that & it's clearly not the majority).
Last edited:
You can't have it both ways, lumping the cost of JSA with pensioners when it suits and then wanting to split when it goes against the argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I'm not sure why you consider anecdotal evidence to be invalid. We're not discussing a hard science here. There are limits to the value of 'statistics' in claims when they are not gathered by observation.
I never referenced a time period, so whether they are short-term or long-term claimants is irrelevant to my argument.
No, I don't and no I won't. I include JSA claimants and for reasons I have already outlined, refute the value of your evidence.
You want me to provide you evidence to show that people on long-term sick are lying about the severity of their illness or that JSA claimants might be refusing work because they might consider it to be beneath them?
That would be very difficult. I don't have much respect for these people, but I do believe they have enough intelligence to know that they don't declare their fraudulent behaviour out loud.
If I had ran a survey to find out how many homosexuals there were in say 1650 Catholic Spain, how many people do you think would admit to their predilections? When I turned up zero respondents, do you think that my 'evidence' would prove no homosexuals existed?
