Russell Brand

[doodab]

But you make the assumption that people with money don't work and encourage their children not to work - why??

Because you seem to assume everyone on benefits doesn't work and encourages their children not to work. Do you think it's only parents that encourage children not to work or do you think the fact that working doesn't pay a living wage might be a factor?

60% of households receive benefits of some kind, and for 30% of households they make up more than 50% of their income. Given that only 17% of households are completely workless, that means that most benefits recipients have jobs, and in fact nearly half of all households where people work receive benefits.

It's also worth noting that of the ~ 4.9 million workless people of working age, 17% are workless because they retired early.

The problem with social inequality is social engineering - the State promotes 'fairness' by discrimination and encourages dependency on the State rather than self-reliance - school children are taught that winning has negative connotations, that success is something to be ashamed of or to be mocked e.g. 'fat cats'. There is no incentive for anyone to succeed as the State has ensured that people can have a relatively comfortable life without having to do a stroke of work. To say that the 'system' doesn't work is just to pass any responsibility for human actions to a faceless oppressor - it gives people an excuse not to strive - 'the 'system' will make sure I fail' . If children were encouraged to succeed with rewards for achievement, were encouraged to take responsibility for the actions and to realise that actions have consequences then the 'system' would not have to succeed or fail as individuals would ensure that order and fairness were achieved.

What a load of clichéd, contradictory tosh. You heap blame on a small part of the "system" before going on to say we shouldn't blame the system. Does perpetuating inequality of opportunity by rewarding those who have money simply for having it not fit with your definition of "social engineering"? Can you really look at a prevailing social order where half of the people who "succeed" need handouts to survive and argue that it's purely the result of people not taking responsibility for their actions? Do you really think that 60% of households would be in receipt of benefits if the part of the system that incentivises people to succeed and determines the rewards for striving actually worked properly?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Because you seem to assume everyone on benefits doesn't work and encourages their children not to work. Do you think it's only parents that encourage children not to work or do you think the fact that working doesn't pay a living wage might be a factor?

60% of households receive benefits of some kind, and for 30% of households they make up more than 50% of their income. Given that only 17% of households are completely workless, that means that most benefits recipients have jobs, and in fact nearly half of all households where people work receive benefits.

It's also worth noting that of the ~ 4.9 million workless people of working age, 17% are workless because they retired early.



What a load of clichéd, contradictory tosh. You heap blame on a small part of the "system" before going on to say we shouldn't blame the system. Does perpetuating inequality of opportunity by rewarding those who have money simply for having it not fit with your definition of "social engineering"? Can you really look at a prevailing social order where half of the people who "succeed" need handouts to survive and argue that it's purely the result of people not taking responsibility for their actions? Do you really think that 60% of households would be in receipt of benefits if the part of the system that incentivises people to succeed and determines the rewards for striving actually worked properly?

I can only do what everyone else in the world does which is to base my opinions on my own experience - I have been really hard up, to the point when I had to sell everything I owned that was of any value, I have had to make the choice between eating and paying the mortgage and I have had money and success. I know why I was in both positions and it all came down to mental attitude. However hard things were I never took money from the State - I never put my life and my future in the hands of the State because I never gave up and never stopped believing that I would succeed in the end. Much of that came from learning how to adopt the right mindset, by applying myself to studying people who had succeeded and how they'd achieved success - that could be taught in schools.

How are those with money rewarded exactly? With higher taxes, higher stamp duty, inheritance tax which takes many families homes from them? How much do those with money contribute? Private schools and private healthcare may be seen as a luxury for the rich that results in poorer standards in the NHS and State schools but, the fact that they exist means that more tax money can be spent by the State - people who are wealthy very rarely take from the State but they do contribute to it.

No-one, in a civilised country should ever be in poverty - I agree with you on that but we are competing in the Global markets with countries whose workers do live in true poverty and experience real deprivation eg. India and China and we are losing out to them because we want goods for next to nothing - we don't care how workers in other countries may be suffering as long as we can buy the latest fashions from Primark for £2.50. The State ensures that people in the UK are not living in that kind of poverty and we are very fortunate to have that but, at the same time, businesses are increasingly wrapped in red tape, higher employment costs etc and are trying to compete with suppliers from overseas who are not subject to this kind of regulation.

You could argue that bosses of big companies should be the same as their workers but why shouldn't they profit from their success? Their workers don't do what they do, they haven't risked what they have risked, they don't have the responsibility of making decisions which could affect the business. Reward has to be commensurate with achievement.

[doodab]

You could argue that bosses of big companies should be the same as their workers but why shouldn't they profit from their success? Their workers don't do what they do, they haven't risked what they have risked, they don't have the responsibility of making decisions which could affect the business.

Many people will never be in a position to risk what they have risked. Another manifestation of inequality of opportunity. Only a relatively small proportion of people have the means, the ability and the luck to get themselves into that position. Why does that mean we should unquestioningly accept that they are entitled to a disproportionate share of the rewards for what is, ultimately, a collective effort?

Reward has to be commensurate with achievement.

Yes, I'm not arguing with that. The point I'm making is that it should work both ways. It's far easier to succeed, and to retain the rewards for doing so, when one has pre-existing wealth, and that skews the reward for a particular level of achievement in favour of people with capital, to the extent that someone with a large amount of capital, however they came by it, can enjoy a comfortable existence with minimal effort and negligible risk, regardless of what they achieve.

[DodgyAgent]

Many people will never be in a position to risk what they have risked. Another manifestation of inequality of opportunity. Only a relatively small proportion of people have the means, the ability and the luck to get themselves into that position. Why does that mean we should unquestioningly accept that they are entitled to a disproportionate share of the rewards for what is, ultimately, a collective effort?



Yes, I'm not arguing with that. The point I'm making is that it should work both ways. It's far easier to succeed, and to retain the rewards for doing so, when one has pre-existing wealth, and that skews the reward for a particular level of achievement in favour of people with capital, to the extent that someone with a large amount of capital, however they came by it, can enjoy a comfortable existence with minimal effort and negligible risk, regardless of what they achieve.

Equality of opportunity will (and does) enable people to create unequal opportunities. Quite why you seem to be so obsessed with this contradictory garbage is beyond me.

[doodab]

How are those with money rewarded exactly?

By a better quality of life, better health, better education outcomes and better life chances for their children. A significant proportion of whom are just as feckless and lazy as the children of the poor and fritter away their opportunities precisely because familial wealth insulates them from the consequences of their actions.

Lets face it, if it wasn't worth having, no one would bother.

[doodab]

Equality of opportunity will (and does) enable people to create unequal opportunities. Quite why you seem to be so obsessed with this contradictory garbage is beyond me.

I'm simply pointing out that the current system has a positive feedback effect that rapidly magnifies these inequalities and persists them over generations, and that it doesn't reward achievement or hard work nearly as well as it rewards being wealthy to start with.

[darmstadt]

Mmmm, Russell Brand. Those long flowing locks, the shirt open to the waist showing that svelte hirsute body, the tight leather jeans displaying a pert little bottom, the mockney accent warbling tulip he has absolutely no idea about. Wouldn't you want to do him? Preferably with a cricket bat and a dead hedgehog :-)

[Churchill]

Mmmm, Russell Brand. Those long flowing locks, the shirt open to the waist showing that svelte hirsute body, the tight leather jeans displaying a pert little bottom, the mockney accent warbling tulip he has absolutely no idea about. Wouldn't you want to do him? Preferably with a cricket bat and a dead hedgehog :-)

The <thwack> of willow on buttock? Suits you, Sir.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Many people will never be in a position to risk what they have risked. Another manifestation of inequality of opportunity. Only a relatively small proportion of people have the means, the ability and the luck to get themselves into that position. Why does that mean we should unquestioningly accept that they are entitled to a disproportionate share of the rewards for what is, ultimately, a collective effort?


Yes, I'm not arguing with that. The point I'm making is that it should work both ways. It's far easier to succeed, and to retain the rewards for doing so, when one has pre-existing wealth, and that skews the reward for a particular level of achievement in favour of people with capital, to the extent that someone with a large amount of capital, however they came by it, can enjoy a comfortable existence with minimal effort and negligible risk, regardless of what they achieve.

How can someone starting a successful company - coming up with the idea, raising funding, selling, marketing, recruiting staff, finding premises etc etc etc etc possibly be considered a 'collective effort'? A small amount of people have the means - many companies are started with very little capital; the ability - that can't be addressed by any form of social engineering (before you say education - many people who have had a very good education will not necessarily make money); the luck - again that's not something that can be addressed by Government.

You still seem to be arguing that wealth accumulation involves no effort and what do you mean that reward for achievement 'works both ways' - either you agree with the concept or you don't

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

By a better quality of life, better health, better education outcomes and better life chances for their children. A significant proportion of whom are just as feckless and lazy as the children of the poor and fritter away their opportunities precisely because familial wealth insulates them from the consequences of their actions.

Lets face it, if it wasn't worth having, no one would bother.

But those rewards have come from their own efforts - they haven't been rewarded by the State or the system