Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    All of these things can be achieved, without going all Stalin-esque on us, through a tax on the value of land.
    I fail to see how it is "Stalinist" to give people a right to shelter, as for the funding, im sure there are many ways of gettinig the tax revenue to do so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    This is true but then again, it is my wealth that I created from my hard work so why should I have to give it to someone else?
    Because as those old relatives of yours recognised, you can't take it with you and it's wrong to walk on by those in need. But because people with wealth often lack a moral compass having traded it in for their pot of greed, the rest of society makes a point of taking it away. Be thankful this isn't the 1960s and wealthy people had 95% tax to pay on their income, not that I see anything wrong with that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    How is it stupid? it is a viable option to anyone that is not a ****ing prude.
    It's a viable option but not one that should be wheeled out in an argument about jobs.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    here in the real world, there is
    No there isn't.

    On the rest of your reply, it isn't free someone would of paid for it through taxes... this is just more strain on the tax payer
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aww the tax payer cliché. Anyone who buys something from a shop that isn't a carrot is a tax payer for god's sake.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    No there isn't.

    On the rest of your reply, it isn't free someone would of paid for it through taxes... this is just more strain on the tax payer
    if we have progressive taxation then we merely require people to fullfill their moral obligation to the society they live in
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I fail to see how it is "Stalinist" to give people a right to shelter, as for the funding, im sure there are many ways of gettinig the tax revenue to do so.
    You could give people the right to Ferraris if you want, but some things simply aren't possible. The tax I suggested was to raise funding for that 'right to shelter', but to change the dynamics of how the property market works, help the housing market to self-correct after the quite insane inflation it has seen over the past 20 or so years.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Because as those old relatives of yours recognised, you can't take it with you and it's wrong to walk on by those in need.
    They did? I can assure you they did not.

    As for morals I give to charity, mainly dementia charities as it is a disease that is not as widely given money to, to help in find a way to slow down the disease and hopefully stop it completely one day... so to say I lost my moral compass is BS.
    (Original post by cambo211)
    It's a viable option but not one that should be wheeled out in an argument about jobs.
    It is a job so it can be imo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    They did? I can assure you they did not.

    As for morals I give to charity, mainly dementia charities as it is a disease that is not as widely given money to, to help in find a way to slow down the disease and hopefully stop it completely one day... so to say I lost my moral compass is BS.
    Well maybe the didn't write the parable of the good samaritan but the point is enough. Wealthy people giving to charity is often as much about them feeling good as is it conviction. You've not convinced me by the words you write that it is the latter.

    It is a job so it can be imo.
    You're honestly unable to see the abhorrence in offering prostitution as the viable alternative to meaningful employment or state welfare? It doesn't surprise me in the slightest but even still.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    It is a job so it can be imo.
    It's not your typical job though. It may be a viable option for some but it's not something we should be expecting people to do as an alternative to benefits.

    If that makes me a prude so be it, but in my opinion if the only jobs that are commonly available are prostitution/escorting it's generally safe to say that there are no jobs available.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Who said anything about crime? escorting can be extremely profitable (not as much for guys but still decent).
    There is no facepalm large enough to do this post justice.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Wealthy people giving to charity is often as much about them feeling good as is it conviction. You've not convinced me by the words you write that it is the latter.
    I give to dementia charities not to feel good but to make sure that their is some kind of medical advancement into finding the cause and helping prevent it because of personal reasons not just to make myself feel better.

    I may not believe in helping someone that is fully capable of doing things themselves but when it comes to this, I'd gladly do what I can!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    You could give people the right to Ferraris if you want, but some things simply aren't possible. The tax I suggested was to raise funding for that 'right to shelter', but to change the dynamics of how the property market works, help the housing market to self-correct after the quite insane inflation it has seen over the past 20 or so years.
    :facepalm:

    yes, because owning a car and an overly flash and polluting one at that, is clearly essential to people in the same way as having a home :rolleyes:

    a right to shelter can be easily acheived by changing the law and raising taxes, sure it may take time for the dynamics to adjust, but I see no reason we cant start making the changes now at the same time as making the taxation and legal changes that will alter the dynamics.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    :facepalm:

    yes, because owning a car and an overly flash and polluting one at that, is clearly essential to people in the same way as having a home :rolleyes:

    a right to shelter can be easily acheived by changing the law and raising taxes, sure it may take time for the dynamics to adjust, but I see no reason we cant start making the changes now at the same time as making the taxation and legal changes that will alter the dynamics.
    I apologise, maybe that analogy was incomprehensible. My point is, we can make up as many rights as we want, but if they are merely fantasies which ignore reality, what is the point in them? A 'right to shelter' is one such idea.

    You may feel that everyone needs a house, but this does not mean the government has the capability to meet that demand.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    You may feel that everyone needs a house, but this does not mean the government has the capability to meet that demand.
    Well, you might say "dwelling" instead. A single person living on their own doesn't much *need* more than a bedroom, bathroom, and living room/kitchen - as evidenced by the lifestyles of many people in London. I'm sure most governments around the world have the capacity to provide that kind of basic, essential living space to its people. But it's not capacity or capability we're really talking about, it's political will.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I apologise, maybe that analogy was incomprehensible. My point is, we can make up as many rights as we want, but if they are merely fantasies which ignore reality, what is the point in them? A 'right to shelter' is one such idea.

    You may feel that everyone needs a house, but this does not mean the government has the capability to meet that demand.
    thats the thing though, to an extent we do have the capablity, and if we do not, we are more than able to facilitate the capability of meeting such demands.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well, you might say "dwelling" instead. A single person living on their own doesn't much *need* more than a bedroom, bathroom, and living room/kitchen - as evidenced by the lifestyles of many people in London. I'm sure most governments around the world have the capacity to provide that kind of basic, essential living space to its people. But it's not capacity or capability we're really talking about, it's political will.
    exactly, it's not that we cant do these things, its that the ruling classes do not want to do them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    exactly, it's not that we cant do these things, its that the ruling classes do not want to do them.
    Ruling classes is a spurious phrase. I would argue that it's more that there is a general unwillingness on the part of most sections of society to actually do anything to restore the social democracy that made Britain the envy of most parts of the world.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...297119741.html
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    The Labour Government to have done something constructive to help out those people in need or to not claim that they 'created the welfare state' when there were people living in poverty who couldn't even be given the bus fare to see their dying brother in hospital and had to be subject to an undermining means-test.
    Why are you even in TSR Labour?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well, you might say "dwelling" instead. A single person living on their own doesn't much *need* more than a bedroom, bathroom, and living room/kitchen - as evidenced by the lifestyles of many people in London. I'm sure most governments around the world have the capacity to provide that kind of basic, essential living space to its people. But it's not capacity or capability we're really talking about, it's political will.
    Government doesn't even need to do this, in reality. Right now, we have a large amount of houses sitting idle because people can't afford to live in them. There is no such thing as a shortage of houses in Britain, they are just out of reach of ordinary people. An LVT would prevent this inflation of house prices we have now, alleviating the 'shortage' we supposedly have.

    The market is better at providing the type of housing people want. Here in London, people - as you say - are forced to live in glorified shacks or rely on housing benefits simply because prices have gone up so much.

    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    thats the thing though, to an extent we do have the capablity, and if we do not, we are more than able to facilitate the capability of meeting such demands.
    'We' have the capability, government does not. I hope you can see the difference.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.