A fair society ...

[Mick Mac]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where would you like to see the balance of

> fairness, Mick?

>

> Say, your child benefit paid in full - and maybe

> 5% off the top rate?

I'll entrust that decision to the current government Bob. I don't have a problem with this measure in particular.

It just seems that "fairness" is a buzzword in politics at the moment and I just wanted to test peoples thinking of what it meant for them.

It got the response I was generally expecting.

[DJKillaQueen]

For me a fairer society woyuld be one in which the gap between the richest and poorest were not so wide. That means having a society were greed is curbed and where the poor at least have hope that they can have a better future. In reality that means governemnts spending far more than they currently do on education, training, mental health resources and job creation.

Unfortumately so far we are seeing no measures in that direction from this government. Tuition fees are set to significantly rise in the review (not something that will encourage the poorest to seek higher education). The drive to remove people from Incap to cheaper benefits will hit those with mental health problems hardest (therefore making them more ill in all likelihood) and training, apprenticeships and so on are woefully small in numbers compared to those that need free access to them.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Two people wash up on an island

One of them notices a pile of wood on their side of the island and builds a hut, using all available material

Do they tell the other person to sleep outside in the puoring rain or do they share the shelter?

If it?s the latter then we have fairness and a more equal society in this example

If the former than the person who build the hut can scream as much as they like about it was them what found the wood, why should they share. It won?t matter. In the end that person will get done in by the person sleeping in the rain.

[*Bob*]

So the lesson seems to be "if you get wood, make sure your neighbour gets some".

[peckhamboy]

Great parable Sean. Of course, the work-shy fellow who does in the other one will end up with a shelter but will starve because he can't be bothered to find any food. Sooner or later, if he wants to survive, he'll have to do some work himself. Even golden geese don't live for ever.

[Mick Mac]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> As long as I have

> that decent job then I am happy to be paying more

> in taxes.

>

And the question is - how much more in taxes are you happy to pay before you stop being happy to pay more Sean? (in percentage terms...) Or is there no limit to your good grace ?

There has to be a point at which the amount deducted becomes unfair on you.

[Mick Mac]

peckhamboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Great parable Sean. Of course, the work-shy fellow

> who does in the other one will end up with a

> shelter but will starve because he can't be

> bothered to find any food. Sooner or later, if he

> wants to survive, he'll have to do some work

> himself. Even golden geese don't live for ever.

I have nothing to say about this - just fancied bumping it onto the new page, cos I liked it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

That's a given bob

Workshy tho. I like that

[louisiana]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > >

> > The tax system is not some kind of piggybank.

> To

> > be paying a lot into it means you are one of

> > life's winners already

>

>

> It is a piggy bank / pot of money / numbers in the

> Chancellors budget model, call it what you like.

>

> Its not a personal piggy bank, but it is money

> received for the benefit of all people in the UK.

>

>

> A balance needs to be struck and govt has to

> consider the needs of those whose need is greatest

> and most deserving.

>

> Saying all the "right" things and "those who earn

> more pay more" is all a bit of a yawn to be

> honest.

>

> There is a stage at which the balance sways too

> far in favour of those who do not make little or

> no contribution to society in financial form or

> otherwise.

>

> The tories are addressing this imbalance.

> Thankfully. Whilst hopefully ensuring deserving

> causes do not suffer.

>

> I have no problem with this particular measure at

> all. But the concept of fairness should consider

> all in society not just the worse off.

>

> of course to extract the maximum from higher

> earners to throw at underserving causes would not

> be "fair" to high earners.

I think a very deserving cause will be to put those going out to work and earning 10k or less to keep that income free of income tax (but not free of NI, of course).

That is the policy that the LibDems have, and which the Tories seem to have accepted. I think that achievement will be a fair result. And I don't think it will be possible without those 75k+ earners (along with others) taking a hit.

[Loz]

Playing devil's advocate with a Daily Mail version to match Sean's Guardian outlook.

Two people wash up on an island

Both of them notice a pile of wood. One builds a hut, using all available material. The other prefers to sunbathe and sleep on the beach.

Winter comes and one night it rains. Do they tell the other person to sleep outside in the pouring rain or do they share the shelter?

There are, of course, many shades of grey between Sean's and this version.

[Brendan]

Although the more realistic reflection of what we?re talking about is that the one person picks up the sticks and uses one of them to beat the other person and force them to build a hut for them.

When winter comes do they have to let the other person share the hut or were their actions a legitimate and laudable use of the resources they had and they therefore don?t have an obligation to share anything?

[Mick Mac]

Cmon Brendan, its not the British Empire anymore.

[louisiana]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the same way that 'having money' boosts your

> rich-o-meter exponentially, 'having none' has the

> same effect - in the opposite direction. And it's

> not just a matter of money.

>

> The richer you are, the more that government,

> society.. life in general.. is on your side.

Like CGT 6 grand profit a year free and gratis. Or minimal taxation on sale of your company.

> Society cuts you slack, big-time. You get away

> with it. But if your chips are down and you

> haven't got a pot to piss in, you get pissed on

> instead - at the drop of a hat.

Like paying 15% or more of your (taxed) income to travel in to work on a bus at 5am every morning and at 9pm every night, if you're a cleaner (and facing over-inflation bus fare increases next year). And still paying tax on your measly earnings which aren't enough to feed a hamster!

>

> In short, if you're a top-rate taxpayer then

> 'fairness' in life has very little to do with a

> couple of grand that you're only going to put

> towards a skiing holiday anyway.

Well said, *Bob*.

[Brendan]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cmon Brendan, its not the British Empire anymore.

No but the rich poor divide in this country is so historically entrenched it is completely valid.

That aside it?s an interesting point to contemplate though. You could argue that if someone had the initiative to take advantage of the situation they have every right to reap complete benefit.

[louisiana]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cmon Brendan, its not the British Empire anymore.

Well, take a look at what's happening with pineapple farming at present, and tell me that big-industrial-agri-business from the first world has nothing to do with it. And that local people (who are having a cocktail of chemicals thrown into their drinking water) have any choice in the matter.

We have, unfortunately, created a dog-eat-dog world.

[SeanMacGabhann]

It's always been that Louisiana. The success is that many societies have tempered the worst excesses of that instinct

The failure is that that appears to some people as a folly

[louisiana]

Indeed. But I just wonder how happy they feel when this is all taken to its logical conclusion.

Gated communities, surrounded by those in indentured servitude, and defended by police and armies. Remember, those in indentured servitude in the bad old days had all their expenses paid; today's low-paid workers (in their hundreds of millions, in whichever country) do not. Progress?

(There's another gated community currently proposed for Crystal Palace, BTW.)

[SeanMacGabhann]

What I?m not sure about is why my island example was in any way Guardian-ish? 2 people arrive on an island, one happens to find wood to build a hut.

I gave two possible examples of what might happen next - neither of which seem liberal per se. And yet it gets called Guardianesque

Interestingly some people assumed the person who didn?t find wood was workshy or off sunning himself. Without any evidence or fleshing out of the story that was the assumption they made. Not ? ?the other person went to find food, of which there was none? or even ?found some flares and tried to alert passing planes? ? nope.. workshy. Now if I had said those examples in the original story then I could see it was Guardianesqe (and no worse for it btw) but I didn?t. People filled in their own blanks

[Mick Mac]

I think you need to write a longer, more detailed story next time Sean.

[*Bob*]

How did they get there, Sean? Give us some background.

Do they eventually fall in love and stuff?

[Brendan]

It all sounds like an awful lot of bother to me. Personally I?d spend the summer working on my tan and then charm my way into the hut come the winter.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Nah the story is simple because the concept of fairness is simple

And timeless. Fairness isn?t a recent buzzword. It has defined the better aspects of our whole evolution as a species. To try and stifle a yawn or opt out of the debate is poor

*Bob* - that chapter is unwritten. Occasional flirting is as far as it gets I think

[Huguenot]

Brenda, an effective tan may more than compensate for your apparent lack of resources in the short term, as many a Footballer's Wife would attest.

Can get a bit rocky after you reach your teabag forties though.

[Brendan]

Is that something similar to Marlboro one hundreds?

[silverfox]

Coming back to Sean's story. What if, come the winter, the other fellow dismantles the hut to use as firewood under the pot and eats the industrious islander? In a state of nature example such as this, is this unfair?