Are we talking formal equality of opportunity, or substantive equality of opportunity?
One involves ensuring there are no arbitrary barriers to something, the other involves treating people unequally to make up for perceived inequalities...
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
Are we talking formal equality of opportunity, or substantive equality of opportunity?
One involves ensuring there are no arbitrary barriers to something, the other involves treating people unequally to make up for perceived inequalities...
(Lack of) income is a pretty huge arbitrary barrier to lots of things. Your desire for equal opportunity is commendable but it cannot exist outside of your head.
You do know I support a universal basic income, right?
Yes, but you also object to the state doing a lot of things, seemingly other than enforcing laws to stop you getting robbed constantly. If you want to combine a universal basic income, flat taxation rate and quality public services such as education, healthcare and housing then that would be a start on achieving this equality of opportunity. But that's not going to be cheap, and I suspect you object to the rate of tax almost as much as you object to the banding.
So what happens if somone makes makes lots of money but doesnt pay for private health care.
They soend thier income as fast as they earn it and then get ill do you just turn them away?
Presumably they get emergency care that costs a ton more than in/outpatient care and the state picks up the tab, somewhat defeating the point. Theoretically speaking I don't think you could make a more efficient system than single-payer with care provision done by a single entity or ones that are closely linked for coordination with handling suppliers.
Ahh efficiency, when if something breaks in say the nurses/doctors lounge, have fun getting it replaced at several orders of magnitude markup than just going to a store and buying it there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
The Commie Corner regulars want everyone brought down to their failbot levels.
So you don't think Jeremy Corbyn is left wing?
I regard banding as unjust, very high tax rates are just unnecessary, so no, I don't object to a high universal tax rate with the same vigour.
From your list, access to high quality education and healthcare is a good state intervention. It doesn't follow that the state has to provide those things, in fact it would almost certainly be better if they don't (see healthcare in most of the EU for example), but that is different to creating and enforcing access.
Housing is a bit different, because it is entirely possible for the housing market to function correctly without the state. That doesn't mean I don't support state housing, but that state housing should provide a floor to the market that ensures no one goes without, rather than fulfilling perceived needs or providing a home that is treated like an owned one. Standardised, two or three bedroom modest houses available for a fixed percentage of basic income, but which cannot be considered 'yours' and for which damage, unauthorised changes etc will be taken from the tenants funds are where I would go for housing. This would also serve to remove the trap of people in state funded housing living in a property that their earning potential would never achieve, and hence providing a strong disincentive for self improvement.
I think he claims to be.
But like most socialists its very much a do as i say not as i do/im alright jack approach.
You mever find it strange how all the left wing leaders the world over live in oppulance?
Heres something to think about.
All the policies prosposed to suposedly fix wealth inequality only focus on future wealth ie income tax.
None ever focus on existing wealth, something which would dramatically affect those in power and actually result in the massive influx of cash needed to back up any nationalisation or reform.
You cant fix the huge disparity we have now with a few extra percentent on income tax youd have to be looking at a huge charge on people with wealth.
I suppose number one on the list for ease would be nationalising all private pension funds
All the policies prosposed to suposedly fix wealth inequality only focus on future wealth ie income tax.
None ever focus on existing wealth, something which would dramatically affect those in power and actually result in the massive influx of cash needed to back up any nationalisation or reform.
You cant fix the huge disparity we have now with a few extra percentent on income tax youd have to be looking at a huge charge on people with wealth.
I suppose number one on the list for ease would be nationalising all private pension funds
Just because they are left wing doesn't preclude them being authoritarian though, in fact it's quite a common secondary position
Not really, for staters just like any Leader they are going to be more wealthy than the rest of the populous and having the wealth in of itself doesn't mean anything, it's how they utilise their position and power that defines them more.
What? How did you get into authoritarianism from that?
So the fundamental prinicples of socialism dont apply to the leaders?
Explains why its never really worked then...
What is 'Do as I say not as I do' if not authoritarian on a political scale?
The difference being the electorate didn't just vote in an ignorant cretin into a position of power
- Status