Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

1% of the Population hold 40% of the Wealth. Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Ok well there's always going to be a lot of conjecture floating around with things like this, but we have an example of a more egalitarian society in the Scandinavian countries and I would say they're doing better than us. There are no shortage of successful people over there either.

    Despite all the rhetoric from the right, it's these Scandinavian countries, with a larger welfare state than us, an even "softer" (i.e. rehabilitation focused) justice system, and more egalitarian taxing system, that are better off than us. Despite these ideas that moving towards these principles would make society worse off, they are happier than us, healthier than us, more crime-free than us and so on. So I think that's a model we should be moving towards.

    You will disagree of course but I think this discussion has run its course so I'm going to leave it at that.
    Even The Economist recently confirmed that Scandinavia is the model for Europe and is doing better across all measurable economic, wellbeing and health criteria than almost anywhere else in the world. Reason: decades of commitment to social democratic and redistributive policies, high tax rates on the wealthy, governments not corrupted by the elite wealthy class.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Ok well there's always going to be a lot of conjecture floating around with things like this, but we have an example of a more egalitarian society in the Scandinavian countries and I would say they're doing better than us. There are no shortage of successful people over there either.

    Despite all the rhetoric from the right, it's these Scandinavian countries, with a larger welfare state than us, an even "softer" (i.e. rehabilitation focused) justice system, and more egalitarian taxing system, that are better off than us. Despite these ideas that moving towards these principles would make society worse off, they are happier than us, healthier than us, more crime-free than us and so on. So I think that's a model we should be moving towards.

    You will disagree of course but I think this discussion has run its course so I'm going to leave it at that.
    Significantly higher tax rates for all and a completly different culture. They some how manage to mix socialism with right wing views. How I don't know, but any Scandanavian I've met would make Nigel Farge look like a Pinko.

    Try reading up on Geert Hofstead. We're great at looking at other nations, but cultural differences get in the way. They also have a smaller population and an economy based around naturla resources.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Even The Economist recently confirmed that Scandinavia is the model for Europe and is doing better across all measurable economic, wellbeing and health criteria than almost anywhere else in the world. Reason: decades of commitment to social democratic and redistributive policies, high tax rates on the wealthy, governments not corrupted by the elite wealthy class.
    http://www.richest-people.co.uk/john...en-and-family/

    You may want to check out the national productivity levels. They're quite heavily related to national culture and identity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product...l_productivity
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    S tory, ignore the main bulk of the story and take on what message it's saying.

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    From Steve Forbes


    So basically what your saying is you want stuff for free without trying. We'll ignore the fact that these rich people re invest their cash to create jobs for others? We'll ignore the fact that nationalised industry has continually failed time and time again.
    I don't see anybody suggesting we replace the current dire situation with economic communism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    So in other words, wealth DOES matter, and poor people WOULDN'T sell all their assets back to the rich, in other words?

    What you said in this post is fine, and I have no problem with, it just goes against the post the I was responding to
    It doesn't go against it everything in that last post was consistent with my first.

    Obviously it matters on an individual level. I would rather have £1m in the bank than nothing, I would have thought that goes without saying. What I mean is wealth inequality isn't something the government should try and eliminate.

    What I mean by selling back is if you were to give the least wealthy 1% say £5000 worth of stock, in 5 years time most of them will no longer be holding £5000, they will be holding less.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Reforming the welfare state so people who aren't working are living well below the bread line. Oh and your wages will not rise and your tax credits will stop.
    No- I meant reintroducing the 10p tax rate and lower NI contributions for those under 15k or so...

    Plus we spend more on welfare than we do on NHS and education combined..something is really wrong here....

    There are a growing number of able-bodied adults who have never worked....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Amen to that!
    The number of idiots that are staying to believe in this socialist stupid ideology is scary!
    In the words of the great Margaret Thathcher "Socialism only works as long as you have money to take from the rich!"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I went to my local Comprehensive. We were all given the same chances. Some chose not to take advantage of that. They're happy now in menial jobs or claiming benefits as long as they have enough for Sky TV, a trip down the pub and a shot in the bookies.
    I know and these are the people who will demand financial support at the expense of the prudent and hard workers.

    Some people blame everyone but themselves for their situation and blame the rich....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bahjat93)
    The number of idiots that are staying to believe in this socialist stupid ideology is scary!
    In the words of the great Margaret Thathcher "Socialism only works as long as you have money to take from the rich!"

    I know, if you over tax the rich ,they'll wither leave or use tax avoidance schemes...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    No- I meant reintroducing the 10p tax rate and lower NI contributions for those under 15k or so...

    Plus we spend more on welfare than we do on NHS and education combined..something is really wrong here....

    There are a growing number of able-bodied adults who have never worked....
    We spend more on welfare because we have to protect people from poverty. We waste money on the NHS by not turning up for appointments. Funding for schools increases when there is a demand for more schools, and as population rises. I think you'll find that we can leave welfare and education alone for now and turn our attention to the appointments issue.

    I think the mantra "there are a growing number of able-bodied feckless who haven't work" is used as an unfair attack on those very people. But I don't see anyone attacking the government's economic policies, which are supposed to provide the means to allow businesses to grow and to allow them to hire people. I don't see anyone attacking the amount of tax payer's money the government wastes each year on pointless initiatives that either do not work or fall far far below target.

    Something really is wrong and it isn't the unemployed man or woman. It's the government.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm sorry for putting this one in again. And as Chian keeps getting used aswell as an example by convieniently ignoring the gap in wealth over there.

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    This is totally true- just compare East Germany (which still hasn't quite recovered from socialism!) to West Germany!
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bahjat93)
    The number of idiots that are staying to believe in this socialist stupid ideology is scary!
    In the words of the great Margaret Thathcher "Socialism only works as long as you have money to take from the rich!"
    I always thought that was one of the silliest, most housewifeish things she came out with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    We spend more on welfare because we have to protect people from poverty. We waste money on the NHS by not turning up for appointments. Funding for schools increases when there is a demand for more schools, and as population rises. I think you'll find that we can leave welfare and education alone for now and turn our attention to the appointments issue.

    I think the mantra "there are a growing number of able-bodied feckless who haven't work" is used as an unfair attack on those very people. But I don't see anyone attacking the government's economic policies, which are supposed to provide the means to allow businesses to grow and to allow them to hire people. I don't see anyone attacking the amount of tax payer's money the government wastes each year on pointless initiatives that either do not work or fall far far below target.

    Something really is wrong and it isn't the unemployed man or woman. It's the government.
    Two examples of how the welfare state has become so large and misguided ( when there are working families that are impoverished due to tax to fund this..)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-trashed.html


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-streets.html




    I didn't say everyone on welfare was there out of choice but there is no denying people like that exist -Just watch Jeremy Kyle!

    I also didn't use the word 'feckless'........ You said it


    I think TaxPayers Allliance has the right focus broadly..after all everything the government gets it takes by force! After all i don't know anyone who will donate to Government! *

    *Though many people who donate to political parties to further their own ends
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You can go to different countries. Some of the Nordic countries have very equal societies and if you want inequality, I know of some African nations that are into that kind of thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    I don't see anyone attacking the amount of tax payer's money the government wastes each year on pointless initiatives that either do not work or fall far far below target.

    Something really is wrong and it isn't the unemployed man or woman. It's the government.
    That is some Libertarian thinking there. Are you seeing the light?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I always thought that was one of the silliest, most housewifeish things she came out with.
    But it is true. Socialism doesn't create wealth; it steals it.

    I don't see Pyongyang prospering as much as Seoul...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    But it is true. Socialism doesn't create wealth; it steals it.

    I don't see Pyongyang prospering as much as Seoul...
    I wonder what example neocons will reach for once North Korea ends as a 'socialist' state. There will be an Ludicrous Comparison Shortage difficulty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    But it is true. Socialism doesn't create wealth; it steals it.

    I don't see Pyongyang prospering as much as Seoul...
    Could you clarify your position?
    it seems that a lot of people have been using countries with greater inequity as a negative comparison to argue for inequality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I wonder what example neocons will reach for once North Korea ends as a 'socialist' state. There will be an Ludicrous Comparison Shortage difficulty.
    You should ask yourself why there is a diminishing number. It doesn't work.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    You should ask yourself why there is a diminishing number. It doesn't work.
    It also doesn't work in debating to keep raising the most extreme example possible to illustrate the alleged truth of your arguments.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

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

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