Cut the bull. I don't dodge arguments as you perfectly well know. You, on the other hand, run away at the first sign of being asked a question that might demand you try more than simply throwing simplistic labels around.

So come on: precisely how do you know what 'sacrifices' anyone here has made – assuming, for the sake of this particular point, that one needs to make whatever you define as "sacrifices" in order to be allowed to say that a fairer society would be a good thing.

Cough up what knowledge you have about people on here. After all, you obviously know.



Why?

Cough up the logic. Cough up the piece of 'theory' that supports your bulltery. There must be, say, some quote you can find whereby anyone who is even vaguely left of centre has to do something or other or else they're not remotely a proper 'leftie'.

Y'know – a bit like anyone who calls themselves a Christian actually having to believe in that Jesus bloke.



Why?

Logic? Theory? etc etc – you must have some, surely? Or don't you bother with backing up arguments in "the real world"?



Your attempt to pretend that I do 'the politics of envy' is bull and is simply another attempt to swerve from the question. What evidence do you have of what people on this forum have or have not 'sacrificed'?



Y'see – there you go: you immediately conclude that a "fairer society" would be a 'socialist' one.

Wowser. Really – are you actually incapable of seeing anything in life in a more nuanced way than that?

El Barbudo has, in succinct terms, illustrated your complete lack of any understanding of political theory. Although I'm not sure that you want to know – I think you're happier to keep everything simple enough and polarised enough for you to comprehend in your "real world".

But let's look at this from another angle.

I (and many millions of others) currently do make a "sacrifice". It's called tax. And part of what tax is spent on is in-work benefits.

In other words, ensuring that someone can live. It's worth noting (for the economically and politically illiterate) that someone living on the street or in a freezing home or unable to afford food is probably not the most productive worker.

In many cases, the people receiving such benefits are employed by very large and successful companies. So in other words, I am helping to subsidise the profits of big and successful companies, in order to ensure that someone doesn't (or shouldn't have to) choose between, say, fuel and food.

Now on the one hand, I'm entirely happy about that. I don't want a society where people who work – let's stick with people who go to work, for clarity – cannot afford to live. Not only would it be 'not fair', it would not be good for society as a whole or even the employer.

However, what pîsses me off is having to subsidise companies that are successful enough that they can afford to pay a living wage to all their employees, without saying it's none of their responsibility and leaving it to the taxpayer.

Of course, the better I do financially myself, the more I "sacrifice" – another point Sal doesn't seem to have bothered to let cross his mind. Indeed, I now pay far more than in all the years I worked for FA (frequently not paid in full anyway), had no holidays for years, was constantly either in debt simply to live or looking over my shoulder in fear of that being the case – and in part, because I did make a sacrifice to do what I rather hoped might better the lives of my countrymen and women. It might have done no good at all or next to no good, but that is hardly the point.

There is a program on sometime this week (I must look it up to see when and where it is on) which takes a handful of unemployed and introduces them to how the benefits system worked in the first year it was introduced (1948?).

Back then it was called "the dole" and from the bit I've seen it was worth around £35 at todays rate, about half of what job seekers allowance is now - and that, I think, is all you got apart from child allowance and the new novelty of not having to pay for a doctors visit when you got ill.

Some of us can think back to our childhoods in the 1960s when our fathers worked but our mothers didn't, and some of our fathers didn't have well paid jobs, or could afford a car (one), and they definitely did not qualify for any in-work benefits AND found themselves paying more tax to pay for the newly introduced health and pension provisions - but one wage per household is all it took, and we had a holiday every year too




So where did we go wrong - why can't a family of four (typically) now survive on one household wage after tax, why does that family of four now have two working parents and STILL qualify for government hand-outs in the form of in-work tax credits ?

The easy answer is all of the frippary in life, Sky subscriptions, mobile phone subscriptions, running two cars, having foreign holidays, etc etc, but that isn't the complete answer, you could stop all of those fripperies tomorrow and STILL not be able to support a family of four on one wage and no tax credits - its housing (rent or mortgage), household fuel costs, and food bills, more than anything its food bills.

No end of striving is ever going to square that particular circle.

You see there you again - it the fault of big business - and you say you don't politics of envy!!

How much of the benefit spend is actually consumed on supporting those in employment - do you know and how does that compare to the tax contribution of all companies?

Let's take a big employer like Barclays it would be interesting to see if all the benefits their employees get is greater than all the taxes they pay - 14% employers NI, business tax to all the councils where they operate and billions in corporation tax. Of course we will never know but you have assumed that the big bad company is being subsidised!!

The more you earn the greater your net income, the tax sacrifice is red herring - typical of your rhetoric. Sacrifice is a conscious decision to forgo something - tax does not fall into that category. The more you earn the greater you net income is - not a greater sacrifice.

Why is it that we should all have to pay child allowance - if you decide to have children you should be able to support them without the aid of benefits. Why is that people cannot live on low wages without the help of benefits, because we have lost the ability of thrift and independence, we have become a nanny state. Perhaps if more people were motivated to get out of the poverty trap rather than relying on the government to provide them with a certain standard of living then maybe as a nation we would be more productive and efficient. Whilst ever the benefits system remains as it is what is the motivation, the more you earn the less benefit you get in some cases you will actually be worse off for earning more - how ridiculous is that?

There you go once again - swerving half the argument - very typical of you - you only answer half the points raised!!

I would take you more seriously if you weren't quite so selective in which parts of a post your incredulity is focused.

You have no idea of the 'reality' of political theory - all you do is point posters in the direction of original thinkers who write what appeals to your confused sense of right i.e. you haven't got an original thought of your own.

Things maybe pretty grim here now, but compared to most other countries on the planet it is still pretty good.

My view is simply this - you have to allow things to take a certain course, those talented individuals have to encouraged to express themselves to the maximum. Some will earn incredible amounts of money but hopefully that money will filter down. These individuals are the wealth generators, the employers of people, the innovators, essential to any thriving state. There has to be financial justifications for people to want to get on an move up the ladder, these justifications have to be significant enough to drive individuals to want to attain them. Yes there are individuals like Richard Rogers who have a policy of wage control - shame he didn't introduce it until after he had made his millions and didn't actually need to draw any money!!

Your idea that all companies should pay sufficient so that no benefits are required is lame, companies would simply employ less staff or increase prices. They have an obligation to the shareholders to deliver a return on the monies invested - capitalism!! why would any investor be bothered if they couldn't get a return - they are not making charitable donations. So why not increase the minimum wage but remove employers NI? Probably because the latter more the adequately covers the former?

How do get a fairer society - the only way is if the financially surplus people are prepared to give to the financially deficit people and there in lies your problem - theories are great until you put the human into them. Why is capitalism the only real game in town? because it is the closest system to the natural instincts of the human. The harder he/she hunts the greater chance of accumulating food. I come back to my very first point you simply do not understand the reality of political theory.

You really don't understand the difference?

Oh, FFS. It's "the politics of envy" to point out that, because many people are so poorly paid that the taxpayer needs to subsidise their pay, from (in many cases) wealthy companies?







The amount of the entire housing benefit spend that is paid to those who are in work is over 80%.



It's an entirely unrelated point – and it also does not explain why many employees of many large companies need in-work benefits just to get by.



So anyone who died in WWII, for instance, making the "ultimate sacrifice", chose to do so? It's a wonder we needed conscription.

And, as I touched on, I have made sacrifices, and over many years. A point you're now studiously ignoring, because it gets in the way of your simplistic rubbish.



Nothing whatsoever to do with the declining rate of income and vast increases, over three decades, in the cost of living - particularly, but not limited to, the cost of housing. Oh no. It's such a doddle to budget for, say, Uk "average of £811 monthly rent" (or £611, if London's costs are removed from the equation) isn't it? [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/10179754/UK-rental-prices-hit-record-high-survey-shows.htmlStory[/url

On the basis of the old idea that it was sensible not to pay more than three times your income to put a roof over your head (in order that you might heat, clothes and feed yourself, for instance). So that would be £7,332 annual rent, requiring an income of £21,996, which is above the UK average, IIRC.



Christ. Even after the discovery that Iain Duncan Smith is a liar, that the government has lied about benefits, that the media has repeated its lies, you're sticking with his little routine. Blimey - the government must have prayed for people like you.

That last paragraph is utter and complete economic illiteracy.

It disregards the facts of falling incomes and a rising cost of living. It disregards the fact that there are not enough jobs to go around for the entire working-age population of the UK. It disregards the fact that many jobs do not pay enough to live on. And it disregards the fact that fear etc are not good 'motivators' for increased productivity.

All your twaddle also completely ignores the fact that, at present, we need to restore some confidence and get people spending again – that's for the sake of the economy as a whole. While most people believe that the economy needs rebalancing, away from the neo-liberal, ie right-wing, Thatcherite, Reaganite bright idea of turning most of it over to the financial spivs, that cannot be done over night and needs time.

So, if you actually want to cut the deficit – as opposed to growing it – you get people into decently-paid jobs where they can support themselves and then put money back into the wider economy too, and you might also want to deal with all the multi-millionaires and corporations that are removing money from the UK economy and ensuring that it does nothing what soever to benefit the nation's economy as a whole.

What you could easily do in order to do part of that is launch a serious social housing project, that would also help to tackle the housing cost component of the cost of living. That would employ vast numbers of people too.

Anyone else remember how we built prosperity in the 1950s?

I look forward to seeing Keynesianism rebranded as 'communism', 'socialism' or 'the politics of envy', although obviously that's only in "the real world", where people whinge about 'benefits', but are far too hypocritical to shop the family that they believe are taking the pîss out of the system.

It does seem rather strange that the most productive period most of the western world enjoyed was during the 1960s, when labour was highy regulated and unionised and income taxes were high. Kinda gives a lie to the oft trotted out mantra that success only follows deregulated labour markets and lower taxes

Bearing in mind that the meaning of the word "equitable" actually is "fair", the only meaning I can derive from the whole sentence is that, as long as society [ulooks[/u fair, it doesn't have to actually [ube[/u fair.

Which, by extension, means paying lip service to fairness, making things look fair but not doing it.

Is that really what you meant?

Quite.
I mentioned Germany to Mr Paradise earlier ... let's see ... labour and employment are highly regulated there, wages are higher there than here, unions are strong there, working hours are lower there than here, unemployment benefit is salary-related, child care is charged at less than half the UK level ... etc etc.

With all those restrictions and emphasis on fairness, it must be a totally crippled economy, a complete basket case run by raving nutcase communists and all its talent must have departed long ago ... but hang on ... it's the most productive economy in Europe.

How can that be Sal?

Steady, you know he can't handle direct questions.

What is being meant here by a "fairer" society? We have a pretty fair society in many ways. The fact that all kids are given free education until the age of 19 if they wish it is very fair and civilised. The fact that so many (mainly male) do not value that is sad but that's not the fault of "the Tories" or "big business" is it?

You missed the introduction of tuition fees, did you?

School kids pay tuition fees do they?

That is generally fair. Of course there are issues in the system with "good" schools and "poor" schools, but in general it's ok.

The problem comes when that system is circumvented by a small minority who receive "better" education and far, far more opportunities.

"Good" schools and "poor" schools are usually nothing of the sort - they are (usually) just a reflection of the intake / catchment area. My children went to a so called "beacon" primary school. The reality was it was not a patch in organisational, etc terms on the old one that my son originally attended in London. The beacon school just happened to be located in one of the most affluent towns on the country whereas the former school in a not very affluent part of the country. Transfer the latter school to the former's location and it would result in chaos and failing school status!

Agreed intake plays a large part but there are undoubtably some schools that are better run or have better teachers than others. But either way that wasn't the point. The point was that the relatively fair system can be circumvented by those with money.

There are not many young adults in school at 19.

I believe everyone has a right to 3 years in the 6th form if they wish.

Slight diversion, but if you're meaning (in part at least) private education, then personally I've seen nothing to suggest that it's better than a good state education.

What it does give people – ever fairly thick people – is a sense of confidence in the rightness of their getting the best jobs and even being born to govern.

I've worked with people educated at public school (and have two uncles who were – and subsequently wrecked a successful business and helped get rid of a load of the inheritance dosh) and it really is little more than that.

Three is it now to get one's A levels?

Depends on one's aptitude.

Yep I did mean private education. I'd agree which is why I put better in quotation marks as there are sadly plenty of people and organisations who assume a private education is better than a public one.
From my albeit limited knowledge the biggest advantage in pure educational terms comes from the smaller class sizes. Which if replicated at state schools would yield similar results.

If private education is better than state-provided education, then it is promoting unequal opportunity.
If private education is not better than state-provided education, then it is pointless, except for the sort of reasons that Mintball has already outlined, to which I would add that, for many, it's a form of social climbing and class-reinforcement so that their children don't have to meet those awful working-class children.

My guess is that it's a bit of both, with some schools actually getting the pick of the crop of teachers.

It's socially divisive, it reinforces class prejudice (both directions) and it's either unfair or no better than state education.
The notion that if one is born into a family that can afford it then one is just lucky is, to me, waffle, there are plenty of talented but less well-off children missing out, that's a waste of talent.

I'd ban it and to hell with the wailing of the already-privileged.

The main issue is when you pay for your kids to go to e.g. Etonyou are not only paying for the education, which could be just as good at the local state school, but also, more importantly, the old boy network.

Personally I would like to see private education banned. If the rich had to send their kids to the same schools as the rest of us then maybe they might be more willing to cough up their taxes.