Originally posted by Golden Key:
Thanks for the explanations about "neo-liberal". Much of it is over my head, so I've mentally filed it as "economics term that's different than my usual political meaning of 'liberal'".
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:So it's fine to cut pensioners' benefits - half of 'em will be dead anyway by the next election, who cares about them? And the others - dotty old things, can't remember why they went upstairs, never mind who the current party of goverment is.
"The first of which will sound a little bit morbid - some of the people... won't be around to vote against you in the next election. So that's just a practical point, and the other point is they might have forgotten by then."
quote:Neoliberal is generally a term for those who believe in absolutely free market economics. They are what Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, refers to as "free market fundamentalists".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If I may ask, where does "neo-liberal" come into it? I know our US political terminology is different; but they'd be (neo-)conservatives here.
quote:Here.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Where do I sign up to join an alliance of tax payers who want the government to fund decent social and welfare services, fund decent state education, fund a health service we can be proud of, offer refuge to those fleeing wars we've partly instigated ...
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:See you in Hell... oh wait, we're already here.
From the title, I thought it must have been posted by a member of UKIP or the Tea Party!
quote:Certain similarities to Christian Voice - not Christian and not speaking for most people who are. Fortunately CV has been blessedly silent for a while (I just checked, they do actually still exist).
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The Tax-Payers' Alliance are an interesting group. In the sense that for the most part they are not tax-payers and they certainly don't speak for most people who are.
quote:The Taxpayers Alliance may be, um, interesting but it isn't a one man band like Christian Voice. AFAIK, Stephen Green is it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Certain similarities to Christian Voice - not Christian and not speaking for most people who are. Fortunately CV has been blessedly silent for a while (I just checked, they do actually still exist).
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The Tax-Payers' Alliance are an interesting group. In the sense that for the most part they are not tax-payers and they certainly don't speak for most people who are.
quote:True, they managed to get five men (and, they are all men) behind that table. That would probably be the entire membership of CV. Especially since Greens wife divorced him (perhaps he should hook up with Kim Davis, they'd make such a great team campaigning on the virtues of Christian marriage).
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The Taxpayers Alliance may be, um, interesting but it isn't a one man band like Christian Voice. AFAIK, Stephen Green is it.
quote:Oh, for a "like" button!
Originally posted by Firenze:
There is something over 10 million people over 65 in the UK. Even if some tens of thousands die or become amnesiac in then next 4 years, that's a lot of us still alive and in possession of our marbles. And our votes.
quote:Which makes it all the more incredible that they would come out with something like this - particularly as, I think I'm right in saying, people over 65 not only vote but are more likely to do so than other age groups.
Originally posted by Firenze:
There is something over 10 million people over 65 in the UK. Even if some tens of thousands die or become amnesiac in then next 4 years, that's a lot of us still alive and in possession of our marbles. And our votes.
quote:Why don't the Tories just cut to the chase and make that their party motto?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
cruel, heartless - and stupid.
quote:Oh for a like button...
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Why don't the Tories just cut to the chase and make that their party motto?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
cruel, heartless - and stupid.
quote:What? You expect honesty from politicians?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Why don't the Tories just cut to the chase and make that their party motto?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
cruel, heartless - and stupid.
quote:The point made is quite correct - if you are to cut the winter fuel payment, now is the strategically correct time to cut it.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Which makes it all the more incredible that they would come out with something like this - particularly as, I think I'm right in saying, people over 65 not only vote but are more likely to do so than other age groups.
quote:According to this from Ipsos - MORI far more older people vote Conservative than for any other party.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:Which makes it all the more incredible that they would come out with something like this - particularly as, I think I'm right in saying, people over 65 not only vote but are more likely to do so than other age groups.
Originally posted by Firenze:
There is something over 10 million people over 65 in the UK. Even if some tens of thousands die or become amnesiac in then next 4 years, that's a lot of us still alive and in possession of our marbles. And our votes.
So, apparently they're cruel, heartless - and stupid.
quote:No, they wouldn't. Those terms are not equivalents, although there is overlap. As Sipech has explained.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My sympathies.
If I may ask, where does "neo-liberal" come into it? I know our US political terminology is different; but they'd be (neo-)conservatives here.
quote:There a queue of us waiting to join too.
Originally posted by Firenze:
There is something over 10 million people over 65 in the UK. Even if some tens of thousands die or become amnesiac in then next 4 years, that's a lot of us still alive and in possession of our marbles. And our votes.
quote:He used to be my MP (about 6 years ago), apparently he was a fairly good doctor before he went into politics, I wonder what happened
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Dr Fox is or was also a GP (still a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners), which gives his apparently blasé attitude to the deaths and mental deterioration of older people just that added hint of nastiness.
quote:Sorry Jane R. My bad.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Barnabas:quote:See you in Hell... oh wait, we're already here.
From the title, I thought it must have been posted by a member of UKIP or the Tea Party!
The use of 'neoliberalism' to describe extreme free-market fundamentalists is standard social science terminology. Since Kippers and TeaPartiers are anti-intellectual sociopaths I suppose it is not really surprising that they (mis) use the term as an insult for other people.
The title was inspired by the current 'Military Bastards' Hell thread.
quote:Yeah, that summarises my understanding of it too. I do have reservations about the use of the term though. It's shifted from where it was in the days of Milton Friedman etc. Whatever you think of their nostrums, they undoubtedly carried a genuine concern for the freedom of the individual. Modern neoliberalism has morphed away from that. You cannot consider any class of people sold to raw globalization as having much consideration for the individual any longer. There's now a market fetishism in there that insulates it from rational discourse concerning things like limits.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:No, they wouldn't. Those terms are not equivalents, although there is overlap. As Sipech has explained.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My sympathies.
If I may ask, where does "neo-liberal" come into it? I know our US political terminology is different; but they'd be (neo-)conservatives here.
US Academic Wendy Brown has written quite a lot on the poison that is neoliberalism. There is no simple definition for what is a complicated phenomenon, but one of the main characteristics of neoliberalism is the extension of market rationality into areas of life that are not economic. It also corrupts laissez-faire economics itself, which is predicated on the idea that there should be small to no government and that the market should be free to operate with as few restrictions as possible. What has happened as a result of neiliberal "rationality" (a contradiction in terms of ever there was one) is that the state actually becomes an agent of the market - and, as you can imagine, quickly becomes an agent of powerful players within the market. Public goods - health, education (especially the universities), social services as mentioned in the OP - are stripped away or compelled to compete as if they were businesses in an economy. This is supposed to render these public goods "efficient" - that word again - but usually leaves them underfunded and unviable.
It's a very troubling phenomenon, and one that is entirely incompatible with the imminent environmental crisis.
quote:This struck me when I read it too. Not everyone votes solely to benefit themselves. I have no children but would vote for a party that had child friendly policies.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Only someone who has no belief in social structures could be idiotic enough to forget that those who die before the next election will have others who grieve and remember them.
quote:OTOH, if you are greedy and selfish, and for the time being well-off, "social structures" are something for other people.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Only someone who has no belief in social structures could be idiotic enough to forget that those who die before the next election will have others who grieve and remember them.
quote:You think they approve of maintaining benefits for others? I doubt it. Judging by their past performances they heartily approve of cutting benefits for children, the disabled and the unemployed and are encouraging the government to add pensioners to their hit-list.
I'm not sure that the Taxpayers Alliance view is necessarily more cynical than the policies it is critiquing, namely that we should cut support to every other vulnerable group in society because they don't vote but leave pensioners alone because they do ...
quote:Apology accepted
Sorry Jane R. My bad.
quote:I agree. In fact, I'd say they were being fairly honest.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not sure that the Taxpayers Alliance view is necessarily more cynical than the policies it is critiquing, namely that we should cut support to every other vulnerable group in society because they don't vote but leave pensioners alone because they do ...
quote:I agree - I suppose I'm saying they're being nasty in a principled rather than an opportunistic way.
Originally posted by Jane R:
You think they approve of maintaining benefits for others? I doubt it. Judging by their past performances they heartily approve of cutting benefits for children, the disabled and the unemployed and are encouraging the government to add pensioners to their hit-list.
quote:Was that a response to my post? I've not expressed any opinion on whether benefit cuts are justified or not. But if one does think they are justified, I can't see any principled reason to exclude pensioners.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Pensioners pay income tax on their pensions. Everyone pays VAT when they go shopping, including my 12-year-old daughter who bought a new toy with her pocket money on Saturday. Talking as if only people who are currently working are entitled to benefit from government spending (and to begrudge every penny spent on someone else) is at best disingenuous.
quote:That's because Americans don't know what 'liberal' means.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Thanks for the explanations about "neo-liberal". Much of it is over my head, so I've mentally filed it as "economics term that's different than my usual political meaning of 'liberal'".
quote:Yep. It suits some to conflate 'tax-payer' with 'income tax-payer.'
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, actually it was, because you seem to have swallowed the line that 'pensioners' and 'taxpayers' are two different groups. They are not mutually exclusive categories.
[x-post - that was a reply to Ricardus as well]
quote:Yes. It's the same for local Councils. If they want to (say) fund a local park, they'll say that they are "investing in local amenities". If they want to be shot of it, it's "an unsustainable drain on resources".
Originally posted by Sipech:
There's an interesting sleight of terminology that was pointed out to me the other day. I think I'd come across it before, but had largely forgotten it.
When it's something that the government wants to promote and is thought of as a good thing, it's funded by government investment.
When it's something that the government dislikes and wishes to cut back on, it's funded by taxpayers' money.
Look out for this and what sections of the press echo this deliberate use of leading terms.
quote:It might not be immediately obvious but the marginal tax rates differ too. Because so many benefits are means tested, a pay increase caused by "working harder" as the government loves to put it can easily result in a family being worse off! I remember that happening to us back in 2001 when I started work after a few months unemployed. It wasn't a badly paid job either. I'm sure that with benefit cuts and a cap overall, things are worse now.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:Yep. It suits some to conflate 'tax-payer' with 'income tax-payer.'
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, actually it was, because you seem to have swallowed the line that 'pensioners' and 'taxpayers' are two different groups. They are not mutually exclusive categories.
[x-post - that was a reply to Ricardus as well]
According to the ONS the poorest fifth of households pay 37.8 per cent of their income in tax in 2013/14, compared with 34.8 per cent for the richest fifth.
AFZ
quote:If you mean that putting 'the logic of the Tory position' in front of a description of the Tory position, and using adjectives like 'nasty' and 'cynical', doesn't make it sufficiently clear that I'm describing the Tory position and not my own, then I suppose yes, that's a fair comment.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, actually it was, because you seem to have swallowed the line that 'pensioners' and 'taxpayers' are two different groups. They are not mutually exclusive categories.
[x-post - that was a reply to Ricardus as well]
quote:For someone who's poor, £10 is a lot of money. It's one month when their budget is a little easier. Maybe they can buy better food, or extra to put away for months when they have a hard time putting any food on the table. Maybe buy some cheap shoes, etc.
Originally posted by Anglicano:
The only benefit I'd withdraw is the £10 Christmas bonus, which is too small to help individuals much, but the millions spent on it could better be directed elsewhere.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If by raising tax thresholds and raising the minimum wage (to something closer to but below the living wage) it can be demonstrated that even with cuts in tax credits and other benefits everyone will be better off, or at least no worse off by even a penny, then I for one may not be happy (I would prefer the poorest in society to gain quite a bit because they're currently scraping below the bottom of the barrel), but at least it moves things in the right direction.
But, when the proposed changes only make the average person better off that means a lot of people are going to be worse off. And, you and I know they'll be the poorest for whom a small cut will have the biggest effect. But, if they've all starved or frozen to death by the next election what does it matter? They won't be voting against the Tories then, will they?
quote:The plural of anecdote is not data.
I'm 70 and comfortably off. In my youth I always felt that "the elderly" (aka "the old folk") were a group like the disabled or the unemployed who we were expected to feel sorry for, albeit in a rather patronising way. But that doesn't seem to apply as much now. At least not in my case.
quote:In the US, if a divorced woman was married at least ten years, she is entitled to Social Security benefits under her ex-husband's SS account.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I'm guessing you are also male, because a lot of 70-something women who worked in the 1970s paid a reduced rate of NI - which didn't count towards your pension, but that was all right because they were *married* and could share their husbands' pension.
Then the husbands (or some of them, anyway) traded their wives in for younger models, and wham, suddenly a lot of women have next to no pension provision just before their retirement.
quote:On the basis that every little helps, I agree. but it is only a little. As I understand it, when the Christmas Bonus was introduced by the wicked Tory government in 1972 (boo hiss) it was rather more than the weekly basic state pension of £6.75. It has been paid at that level every year since, except by the lovely Labour government in 1975 and 1976 (yay, yay). It is now worth rather a lot less that the weekly basic state pension of £115.95.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
For someone who's poor, £10 is a lot of money. It's one month when their budget is a little easier. Maybe they can buy better food, or extra to put away for months when they have a hard time putting any food on the table. Maybe buy some cheap shoes, etc.
And it might just mean that they can have a small celebration of whatever winter holiday they celebrate.
FYI: I've never heard of a benefits program, here in the US, that gives extra at Christmas.
quote:Funny, I was under the impression that a salary was fair payment for services rendered rather than unearned luck. And that the taxes paid on said salary are the means by which society is paid back for facilitating the ability to earn it.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...because of your luck, not just your prudence, you actually owe the society that facilitated your success.
quote:I think NP's point is that being in a position where your services rendered are worth lots more than others' is as much a matter of luck as it is anything else. IME, that is very true. Case in point - a surgeon's services rendered are very valuable in the market, but that is both because of the work he's put into qualifying, and his pure luck in being intelligent enough and having other personality attributes that are conducive to being capable of training to become a surgeon.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Funny, I was under the impression that a salary was fair payment for services rendered rather than unearned luck. And that the taxes paid on said salary are the means by which society is paid back for facilitating the ability to earn it.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...because of your luck, not just your prudence, you actually owe the society that facilitated your success.
quote:While I agree that such a thing as innate intelligence exists, I don't think it makes as big a difference as you're suggesting. Working hard at school is what makes the difference - and that's not about luck, it's about choice.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think NP's point is that being in a position where your services rendered are worth lots more than others' is as much a matter of luck as it is anything else. IME, that is very true. Case in point - a surgeon's services rendered are very valuable in the market, but that is both because of the work he's put into qualifying, and his pure luck in being intelligent enough and having other personality attributes that are conducive to being capable of training to become a surgeon.
quote:So how do you explain that the majority - and often the vast majority - of positions in government, the civil service, the judiciary and the media are all taken by those from public school?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Working hard at school is what makes the difference - and that's not about luck, it's about choice.
quote:Not only is Marvin from Mars, I think we can be sure he is still there.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:While I agree that such a thing as innate intelligence exists, I don't think it makes as big a difference as you're suggesting. Working hard at school is what makes the difference - and that's not about luck, it's about choice.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think NP's point is that being in a position where your services rendered are worth lots more than others' is as much a matter of luck as it is anything else. IME, that is very true. Case in point - a surgeon's services rendered are very valuable in the market, but that is both because of the work he's put into qualifying, and his pure luck in being intelligent enough and having other personality attributes that are conducive to being capable of training to become a surgeon.
quote:Yes, she does have rather...creative...ways of getting people to help their neighbors. Especially in "Witches Abroad", where she...motivates...a bunch of woodcutters and such to help an elderly woman in dire straits.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Where's Granny Weatherwax when you need her?
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:You're an intelligent chap, Marvin. Surely you can't really believe this? I'm a moderately intelligent type who, over the years, has earned a very good living out of the television industry. I have a freind who is a nurse. She is at least as well qualified as I am, is probably more intelligent, and works harder by several orders of magnitude than I ever have, yet she is remunerated much less well. I really don't see any correlation between working hard, whether at school or since, and monetary reward. And that's just within the narrow bounds of middle-classness. When you consider society in its totality, including those born to sink estates (projects), and those born into great personal wealth, your contention is ludicrous.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:While I agree that such a thing as innate intelligence exists, I don't think it makes as big a difference as you're suggesting. Working hard at school is what makes the difference - and that's not about luck, it's about choice.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think NP's point is that being in a position where your services rendered are worth lots more than others' is as much a matter of luck as it is anything else. IME, that is very true. Case in point - a surgeon's services rendered are very valuable in the market, but that is both because of the work he's put into qualifying, and his pure luck in being intelligent enough and having other personality attributes that are conducive to being capable of training to become a surgeon.
quote:Are those the only areas that matter? I consider myself successful, but I'm not in any of them.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So how do you explain that the majority - and often the vast majority - of positions in government, the civil service, the judiciary and the media are all taken by those from public school?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Working hard at school is what makes the difference - and that's not about luck, it's about choice.
That's not about working hard. That's about how wealthy your parents are.
quote:No. They're not the only areas that matter. If you want more, let's try all these.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are those the only areas that matter? I consider myself successful, but I'm not in any of them.
quote:Well, there's that. And not having congenital problems that arise from low birthweight and poor development in the womb because of what your mother did or didn't eat and how she lived. And having parents who value you and your development and education, and know how to express that value (which needn't involve spending a lot of money but does involve a lot of commitment of time and attitude). And living in a place where the local council puts resources into things like public libraries and schools and has some imaginative and aspirational ideas about what those resources are for. And growing up in a home that is big enough for you to have some quiet space to do your schoolwork. And not having to spend a lot of time during your schooldays doing paid work, and then leave full time education for employment at the earliest possible opportunity, because your family needs the money.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
.... Working hard at school is what makes the difference - and that's not about luck, it's about choice.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:In US Presidential elections, the tall guy usually wins. This time around, that's Donald Trump. Still, if Hillary's the Democratic candidate, maybe she can nominate Bill as her champion: he and Donald Trump are the same height.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Height. Height affects salary.
Seriously, there's been a study. And a whole lot of other studies demonstrate in different ways that how someone looks is a huge factor in success in various situations, including job interviews.
quote:Yeah but in the television era it's also usually the guy with the most hair... so Hilary will beat any of them...
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:In US Presidential elections, the tall guy usually wins. This time around, that's Donald Trump. Still, if Hillary's the Democratic candidate, maybe she can nominate Bill as her champion: he and Donald Trump are the same height.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Height. Height affects salary.
Seriously, there's been a study. And a whole lot of other studies demonstrate in different ways that how someone looks is a huge factor in success in various situations, including job interviews.
quote:I've already agreed that there's an element of luck involved, we're just arguing about how significant it is. You seem to be saying it's virtually all luck, which I simply cannot agree with as it strips us all of any responsibility for the development of our own lives. If it's all just luck then there's no point in trying - whether you succeed or fail is entirely out of your hands so you may as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's way, way more variation than you're willing to admit. I know it makes it easier to cope with people scraping a living and having a bad time of life if you can think to yourself that it's their fault, but you're going to have to face that there's am element of luck as well, even if you do have to add hard work to that.
quote:I'm not arguing it's all luck. Just that luck is an indispensable element. And plenty of people get little enough of it that despite all their hard work they are still shafted. But even if it were all luck, what then? You seem to be arguing from adverse consequences - "if it were, then effort would be pointless". Well, that is true, if it were, then effort would be pointless. But that wouldn't make it any less true, if it were, which no-one is actually arguing it is.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I've already agreed that there's an element of luck involved, we're just arguing about how significant it is. You seem to be saying it's virtually all luck, which I simply cannot agree with as it strips us all of any responsibility for the development of our own lives. If it's all just luck then there's no point in trying - whether you succeed or fail is entirely out of your hands so you may as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's way, way more variation than you're willing to admit. I know it makes it easier to cope with people scraping a living and having a bad time of life if you can think to yourself that it's their fault, but you're going to have to face that there's am element of luck as well, even if you do have to add hard work to that.
quote:Oh for fuck's sake, this isn't worth it. No-one's struggling to feed themselves and keep a roof over their head over a medal at the olympics. We're talking about economic injustice, not people playing games.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair? That people with a natural ability to run really fast win the Olympic 100m contest every single time. Maybe we should bring in an elaborate system of handicapping such that even an unfit bugger like me who hasn't seen the inside of a gym in over a decade has just as much chance of winning the gold medal as all those naturally blessed buggers. They don't deserve their medals! They didn't really earn them, it was just luck that they were born with that ability! And after all, I'd work just as hard over fifty meters as they would over a hundred...
quote:Been reading Ayn Rand, have you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair? That people with a natural ability to run really fast win the Olympic 100m contest every single time. Maybe we should bring in an elaborate system of handicapping. . . .
quote:Actually I think it is. Depending on who you ask, I am either one of the youngest baby boomers or one of the oldest of Generation X. I didn't have to pay tuition fees at university (even at what now looks like the bargain-basement rate of £3000 per year) for which I am very grateful, but I graduated in the middle of the last recession but one and am now self-employed with next to no pension provision. It may be tempting to chop the population up into sweeping categories when you are looking for someone to blame for a crisis (and yes, I am guilty of doing it too) but life is not as simple as that.
It’s not unfair to describe the baby boomers as the generation who bankrupted their children.
quote:I can think of several reasons, all of which were probably considered when the Labour government introduced free bus passes:
So yes, I do think there is a serious debate to be had about why my parents get to travel free on the bus at the taxpayer’s expense, when they are so much better off than many people younger than them.
quote:I've never read a single word she's written (unless it was being quoted by someone else, of course).
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Been reading Ayn Rand, have you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair? That people with a natural ability to run really fast win the Olympic 100m contest every single time. Maybe we should bring in an elaborate system of handicapping. . . .
quote:I wonder if our extra-terrestrial knows that handicapping was used in professional athletics, back when the Olympics were still ostensibly amateur.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Been reading Ayn Rand, have you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair? That people with a natural ability to run really fast win the Olympic 100m contest every single time. Maybe we should bring in an elaborate system of handicapping. . . .
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:AFZ
From An alien's view of earth...
I would be inaccurate to describe my life thus far as a bed of roses or to try to deny that I have had to make sacrifices and work hard to get where I am. I think it is very easy to turn such truths into a self-made-man myth that so pervades our culture. And a myth it really is.
I have had the following huge advantages. I was born in the UK, the sixth richest country in the world. I have had up until university, free education. I went to university when fees were a lot lower than they are now. All through my life I have had access to free healthcare. As a child, I had a mother who had the simple expectation that we would do our best. Nothing more, nothing less. Failure was always acceptable, not trying was not. At various stages of career and life I have had countless valuable opportunities. I lost my mother relatively young but because she planned well, I've had a big headstart financially.
So I find myself with a home, a career that is challenging and rewarding and interesting. I have true and real friends. I have traveled widely, I have an expensive and interesting hobby. This could end up being s long, long list. It is true that I have made much of what has been given to me, but seriously how much have I been given!!
quote:No one gives shit. Seriously. We're talking about luck, not fairness.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair?
quote:One of the stupider paragraphs you've ever generated.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair? That people with a natural ability to run really fast win the Olympic 100m contest every single time. Maybe we should bring in an elaborate system of handicapping such that even an unfit bugger like me who hasn't seen the inside of a gym in over a decade has just as much chance of winning the gold medal as all those naturally blessed buggers. They don't deserve their medals! They didn't really earn them, it was just luck that they were born with that ability! And after all, I'd work just as hard over fifty meters as they would over a hundred...
quote:Karl brought up fairness first.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No one gives shit. Seriously. We're talking about luck, not fairness.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair?
quote:Fairness in the tax system. Not in life.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Karl brought up fairness first.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No one gives shit. Seriously. We're talking about luck, not fairness.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know what else isn't fair?
quote:In Australia you only get an "age pension" if you have failed to make provision for yourself. Do you think that's fair? Why bother to save for retirement if the state will bail you out? I must read that Wise and Foolish Virgin parable again.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So you should be means tested Anglicano, because you can afford it,.
quote:I don't think we want to leave people, however spendthrift, to starve in the street. So those with nothing get something.
Originally posted by Anglicano:
In Australia you only get an "age pension" if you have failed to make provision for yourself. Do you think that's fair?
quote:Well, don't. If you recover from your paroxysm of orgasmic rapture, you will give up Christianity and erect an alter to her.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I've never read a single word she's written (unless it was being quoted by someone else, of course).
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Been reading Ayn Rand, have you?
quote:But AIUI pretty much all Australian 'pensions' (what we would call 'benefits' here, including those for people of working age) are means-tested and non-contributory, historically balanced for working people by a tradition of judicially-decided living wage settlements. It's a different social security culture altogether.
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:In Australia you only get an "age pension" if you have failed to make provision for yourself. Do you think that's fair? Why bother to save for retirement if the state will bail you out? I must read that Wise and Foolish Virgin parable again.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So you should be means tested Anglicano, because you can afford it,.
quote:To be fair to Marvin, at least the fact he's trying to salve his conscience by reconstructing reality in his head so that people who are in the shit deserve to be, it demonstrates he's actually got a conscience to salve.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Many people have never made enough to save. (Yes, really.) Many people did save, but lost the money through no fault of their own: medical expenses (which can bankrupt you, here in the US); an economic crunch like the Great Recession (more of a depression) a few years back; natural disasters, etc.
Many people never have the option of a pension through work. And a lot of pension money was lost during the recession. IIRC, some companies dropped pensions altogether.
Maybe Anglicano and Marvin haven't experienced this, but it's quite possible to do all the right things and not get the right result.
quote:Ha! You would make a good, battered spouse with that logic.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair to Marvin, at least the fact he's trying to salve his conscience by reconstructing reality in his head so that people who are in the shit deserve to be, it demonstrates he's actually got a conscience to salve.
It shows the presence of some hope.
quote:Hey, just trying to be charitable. I actually quite like Marvin despite his completely unrealistic idea of how the world actually works and how reality actually is for lots of people he knows nothing about.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Ha! You would make a good, battered spouse with that logic.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair to Marvin, at least the fact he's trying to salve his conscience by reconstructing reality in his head so that people who are in the shit deserve to be, it demonstrates he's actually got a conscience to salve.
It shows the presence of some hope.
quote:Oh, but I disagree. I think that is far too simplistic a view for a start. And conscience seems far too easily assuaged to be very strong, in many cases.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I agree. But people without a conscience do not need to be "allowed" to do so by a mistaken impression. Therefore those who take this line are those with consciences. And that's where hope lies; if they see the reality they may change their attitudes.
quote:All the Tories and their pals are interested in is making money and increasing their wealth at the expense of others. They do that by rigging the tax system so that ordinary people actually pay more tax than the rich and the companies owned by the rich. As for pension plans these benefit those who run and own them for more than those who contribute to them.
Originally posted by Anglicano:
Can I mention Australia again (I lived there from 2001-05)? People with employer-based pension could/can draw a lump sum and invest it as they wanted. Now G Osborne's introduced that to the UK. Great. It gives freedom to use your money as you want.
But be careful. We are not all Wise Virgins. people can (and do) misinvest the monies, spend it on holidays or for all I know put it on a racehorse. And then? The state steps in and they draw benefits.
In the refined world of Tory politicians, we are all prudent. We live in a property-owning, share-owning democracy. With their limited vision and experience of the real world, that's perhaps how Messrs Cameron and Osborne see life. And quite possibly the Taxpayers' Alliance have this perception too. Though whether they approve of bailing out the improvident, I'm not sure.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
All the Tories and their pals are interested in is making money and increasing their wealth
quote:How on earth do you think this is better?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
All the Tories and their pals are interested in is making money and increasing their wealth
So many people make it sound like they're deliberately and maliciously trying to make things harder for the poor. They're not - they're just doing what they can to make themselves better off, and the effects on anyone else are utterly irrelevant.
They don't hate poor people, because to hate someone you've first got to actually think about them.
quote:Almost, but not quite. In their perpetual quest to hoover up every last penny, the Tories occasionally look around and see that the poor still have some money that, for them, would be far better used elsewhere - usually offshore. So schloooop, up it goes into the big Tory dustbag, and the poor can go fuck themselves. Or, since the'll now be half-starved and won't have the energy to go fuck themselves, they can always spend the evening hanging out down at the local foodbank.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
All the Tories and their pals are interested in is making money and increasing their wealth
So many people make it sound like they're deliberately and maliciously trying to make things harder for the poor. They're not - they're just doing what they can to make themselves better off, and the effects on anyone else are utterly irrelevant.
They don't hate poor people, because to hate someone you've first got to actually think about them.
quote:But AIUI pretty much all Australian 'pensions' (what we would call 'benefits' here, including those for people of working age) are means-tested and non-contributory, historically balanced for working people by a tradition of judicially-decided living wage settlements. It's a different social security culture altogether.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Oh yes, sure. But non-contributory in the sense that entitlement to, or amount of, a pension does not depend on having paid into a social insurance scheme- unlike the state retirement pension in the UK (now however often augmented with means-tested top ups).
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:But AIUI pretty much all Australian 'pensions' (what we would call 'benefits' here, including those for people of working age) are means-tested and non-contributory, historically balanced for working people by a tradition of judicially-decided living wage settlements. It's a different social security culture altogether.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Except of course that we contribute through the taxes we pay (and continue to pay after retirement).
quote:All societies have contracts, both legal and implied which govern how we interact. Violate those too far and you have unrest, protest and Revolution. People without a conscience, but with a functioning understanding of this, use rhetoric as a mask. They use it as a way to convince you that it is their pocket you have on your trousers.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I agree. But people without a conscience do not need to be "allowed" to do so by a mistaken impression. Therefore those who take this line are those with consciences. And that's where hope lies; if they see the reality they may change their attitudes.
quote:This is just what has gone into their coffers, the gun industry is a ~$15 billion industry, so yeah, a bidding war would work.
In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.
The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.
Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.
The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.
