Struggling To Pay Your Mortgage And Feed...
News0 min ago
A Fairer Society?
63 Answers
Given the unfairness in our society, (food banks, universal credit problems etc), what would you have our politicians do to urgently bring about a fairer society?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
People who are hard up go to foodbanks and get supplies and provisions for nothing, all kindly donated by those living in better means. I'm not sure what is unfair about that??
Some people are successful in life, some aren't - whether by sheer misfortune or by lack of hard work, to claim "It's not fair, Joe Bloggs has got it all and I aint got nuffin'" is, frankly, pathetic.
Society is, by and large, quite fair. You get out of life what you put into it. Some people are willing to work hard to achieve their goals and some people think it should be given to them on a plate.
I am all for helping people who have fallen on hard times, but I'm damned if I'll help a scrounger.
Some people are successful in life, some aren't - whether by sheer misfortune or by lack of hard work, to claim "It's not fair, Joe Bloggs has got it all and I aint got nuffin'" is, frankly, pathetic.
Society is, by and large, quite fair. You get out of life what you put into it. Some people are willing to work hard to achieve their goals and some people think it should be given to them on a plate.
I am all for helping people who have fallen on hard times, but I'm damned if I'll help a scrounger.
I was at the gym this week and I was chatting to a girl next to me and I asked her what she did for a living. She told me she didn't have time to work, because she wouldn't have enough time to see her mates and keep herself looking good. Then I realised it was 11AM and the gym was full of young fit people, who were there every morning. They can't all work nights. There were a lot of older people like me as well but all of retirement age.
Fair play to those who were looking for work and looking after themselves in the interim but I wonder how many have the attitude of that young woman where not working, access to free facilities etc is now seen as a valid lifestyle choice.
So life isn't fair, because those in work, and those who have worked have also funded this change.
Society isn't fair but it's true the more you put in the more you get out. If there is no differences, there can be no aspiration and growth. I would like to see everyone not working attending some form of training and benefits given based on attendance there could even be bonuses for gaining qualifications. The exception being those with genuine disabilities. I would rather be funding that young lady being taught useful skills than having free use of a gym.
Fair play to those who were looking for work and looking after themselves in the interim but I wonder how many have the attitude of that young woman where not working, access to free facilities etc is now seen as a valid lifestyle choice.
So life isn't fair, because those in work, and those who have worked have also funded this change.
Society isn't fair but it's true the more you put in the more you get out. If there is no differences, there can be no aspiration and growth. I would like to see everyone not working attending some form of training and benefits given based on attendance there could even be bonuses for gaining qualifications. The exception being those with genuine disabilities. I would rather be funding that young lady being taught useful skills than having free use of a gym.
I agree Rowan, those that need help to get on their feet should receive some benefits.
Those that for some valid reason will never be self supportive should be supported.
Those that choose benefits as a lifestyle should not be supported.
Q: What's long and useless?
A: The queue at the benefits office.
That's not a dig to all, just those that bludge.
Those that for some valid reason will never be self supportive should be supported.
Those that choose benefits as a lifestyle should not be supported.
Q: What's long and useless?
A: The queue at the benefits office.
That's not a dig to all, just those that bludge.
Even if all they do for a while is course after course eventually a lot will have enough to offer that they will be able to get a job they will be able to stick at. I would also offer a grant in the form of vouchers to buy appropriate work clothes, footwear and tools it's easier to fit into a new role if you look the part.
Life is very much about priorities - if your priorities lead you to a life you don't like/enjoy then change your priorities. Is it possible that in the UK people could consider living like foreigners do and not assume that such things as a large flat screen TV, a generous quota of alcoholic drink, a car, tobacco or e-cigarettes, a full house of furniture, new clothes at short intervals, etc., etc. are a personal right and expect others (the state) to supply them ? Percentages also come into what societies are like - is it possible there are too many people who want to live passive lives and wait for things to come their way ? I frequently visit societies both wealthier (materially and socially) and measurably less so (but only materially) and it seems to me they get on remarkably well on principles which border on being anathema to large numbers of people in the UK. The problems listed in the OP and in the replies strike me as ones dogging in particular the UK and USA - one of them too often keen to emulate the other.
There is a housing estate near me, at least 50% don't work and in some cases they're into the third generation of non workers. These are not people who cannot work they just don't want to. Until this attitude of me first changes there will never be a fair society, is it fair OAP's still pay income tax to help support these scroungers?
The minimum benefit cap is £13,400 - even pensioners dont get that much!
https:/
https:/
There is no magic solution; simply moving gradually towards such a society is your best bet. There are things one can consider though. A 100% income tax rate over a certain level, because no one can claim being so important that they can justify extracting so much of the country's/world's wealth for themselves, might help; as long as the return of it to the public isn't wasted. Having a clear definition on what publically funded services are for all citizens and which purely for those in need would clarify a lot. The qualification for the "need" ones inevitably will have to be confirmed, unfortunately, but that should be picked up without the potential claimant having to know of it's existence or to apply for it. Such welfare should be available immediately, but it should only cover close to minimum living needs, for there should be no incentive not to make the effort to improve one's lot and contribute whenever possible. Looking at the issue from another direction, it should be illegal to charge extortionate rates of interest, thus preying on the vulnerable. Credit cards are probably too expensive anyway, let alone pay-day type lenders. One is either a reasonable risk or an offer ought not be forthcoming. Well that's enough for folk to disagree with and make excuses not to implement for now, so don't expect too much of an outbreak of fairness soon.
“A 100% income tax rate over a certain level, because no one can claim being so important that they can justify extracting so much of the country's/world's wealth for themselves, might help;”
Yeah right, OG. And how much revenue will be raised from that tax regime? What company in its right mind (or employee, for that matter) would agree to a salary level knowing that 100% of it will go straight to the Exchequer? What you are suggesting is a salary cap because no company will pay its employees cash that it knows they cannot retain. The company will keep the dosh and shell it out in other ways such as dividends. The idea is simply ridiculous. As has been mentioned, a tax level of 98% drove high earners out of the country. A salary cap will just the same (only more quickly).
The notion of “fairness” seems to be centred around income and wealth. In that respect life is not fair and never will be. Let’s imagine you could collect all the wealth held by the population at midnight tonight (leaving no opportunities to salt any away offshore). Tomorrow morning every adult gets an equal share of that sum. By this time next week some people will have increased their wealth significantly; others will be nigh on skint; most will be somewhere in between. People handle their wealth differently and are capable of generating income to different levels. There’s nothing unfair about that. It’s called Life.
Yeah right, OG. And how much revenue will be raised from that tax regime? What company in its right mind (or employee, for that matter) would agree to a salary level knowing that 100% of it will go straight to the Exchequer? What you are suggesting is a salary cap because no company will pay its employees cash that it knows they cannot retain. The company will keep the dosh and shell it out in other ways such as dividends. The idea is simply ridiculous. As has been mentioned, a tax level of 98% drove high earners out of the country. A salary cap will just the same (only more quickly).
The notion of “fairness” seems to be centred around income and wealth. In that respect life is not fair and never will be. Let’s imagine you could collect all the wealth held by the population at midnight tonight (leaving no opportunities to salt any away offshore). Tomorrow morning every adult gets an equal share of that sum. By this time next week some people will have increased their wealth significantly; others will be nigh on skint; most will be somewhere in between. People handle their wealth differently and are capable of generating income to different levels. There’s nothing unfair about that. It’s called Life.
When people talk about a 'fairer society' I always ask for an example of a fair society and no-one has ever been able to give me an example. As has been said the greatest obstacle to a 'fairer society' is human nature. My mother lived on her state pension, she got help with her council house rent but she didn't find it hard, she had always lived within her means even when we were children and dad was working. Her neighbour told her that we were lucky to have good jobs and nice homes. Her response was Yes, the harder they've worked the luckier they've been!
When I was still teaching we all knew roughly what each earned, publicly available pay scales but how people used that money differed widely, some spent the month building up an over-draft, paid it off then started again. Nature being what it is I, and those like me, who lived within out means were the ones mocked and sneered at, how could we afford regular holidays, school fees etc..
As for lessons in schools on money management, thought I'd strayed into the Dm site, schools responsible for everything.
When I was still teaching we all knew roughly what each earned, publicly available pay scales but how people used that money differed widely, some spent the month building up an over-draft, paid it off then started again. Nature being what it is I, and those like me, who lived within out means were the ones mocked and sneered at, how could we afford regular holidays, school fees etc..
As for lessons in schools on money management, thought I'd strayed into the Dm site, schools responsible for everything.
