Work so hard you cripple yourself

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
relieve local authorities of an onerous responsibility
Do you believe in home ownership?

You know the benefits of having investment in land and the benefits of a growing asset

It’s hilarious how Tory supporters are massively supportive of property ownership but twist themselves inside out claiming that it’s a terrible thing for councils to own property.
 
Public satisfaction is based on feelings. The feelings after the pandemic were low. No government was going to survive that strength of feeling

The number of rich people is pretty irrelevant. You're assuming that having more rich people means we have more poor people which is not the case. The rich people invest their wealth to get returns. The investments usually involve increasing profits for companies who employ more staff, who earn money, who pay taxes. The economy benefits.

Governments want the UK to thrive to boost the economy. Itr's how they choose to do that that counts. We know Labour will mess up the next 4 years and we know that the Tories, without or without a coalition, will return to power to remain for several decades until some other, third party event, changes the feelings of the people once more. History does rather repeat itself, politically-speaking.

I was modestly successful in lfe. I worked, was ambitious and ended up with a lot more than my parents ended their time with. Because of that, I can help my kids financially while I'm still around to see their development and will leave them my wealth when I'm gone. They will, I hope, use their inheritence to maintain and develop their lifestyles. I'm sure there are a lot of middle class families like mine.

When I look around and see those who can't afford homes, I see a lot of those who don't work yet crave the benefits of those that do, but without the effort.

I suppose I am using the house ownership, new cars and frequent family holidays as a benchmark of success, ambition and middle class wealth. But it's just an irrefutable fact of the modern age. Hard work brings its own rewards. Sitting around waiting fo rewards generally doesn't. It is the way of the world.

Wow, a post filled with mostly debunked fallacious tropes.

I think you misunderstood a part of the point entirely:
When I gave the factual figures of the increasing number of very, very wealthy in UK, I also provided the factual evidence of the decrease of the vast majority of the rest of society. Do you not understand that if the Very, Very wealthiest, which is a tiny, tiny minority of UK citizens, are increasing their wealth by double, triple or ten-fold, while at the same time, the rest of society is 8% worse off, this indicates a structural failure in the Economy which actually diminishes the Revenue returned in taxation?
People who earn very little always spend ALL of it, and in doing so they are taxed on ALL of their income both as earnings and then as spendings.
People who have more money than they know what to do with do not spend it. They also take advantage of the tax avoidance systems which, structurally, only the super wealthy can avail themselves of. So both their earnings and their spendings return less Revenue to the Economy. If you were to distribute that wealth more evenly over the population then no earning tax avoidance would be possible and the money would be spent, generating Economic Activity which benefits everyone.

You also fail to understand the observable reality that "trickle down" is clearly not a thing, despite your fallacious trope of "wealthy invest, create jobs and those jobs are taxed." This has been repeatedly debunked. Proof: when the median earnings of the mass of employees drops by 8%, at the same time as wealth being concentrated amongst the very few, then you know that "trickle down" is a complete fallacy. It's in your imagination. It's nonsense. Yet people still fall for the myth, despite the irrefutable evidence to the contrary which can be presented in black and white...


NHS satisfaction is not entirely "feelings based" at all - it has a lot to do with expectation versus treatment versus health outcomes.
Oh, and actually, the Pandemic provided a boost to the satisfaction ratings due to "clap on your doorstep" shenanigans.

Govts do want the Economy to thrive, and everyone should agree with that fundamental desire - but it is the aim of that thriving which separates different flavours of Govt. A govt that actively seeks to help concentrate the wealth generated from Economic Activity into the hands of a tiny minority is different from a Govt that seeks to redress that balance of Economic Activity to the benefit of the whole of society more evenly.


Forgive me also for poo-poing the concept that you "look around" and see benefit scroungers (which kinda contradicts the "I look around and I see nice cars and fancy holidays"). It isn't real and it isn't true. Again, it's in your imagination. Fact: Most people on benefits are in work. This is not an opinion, nor a personal anecdote of "looking around". It's just the facts.
 
People who have more money than they know what to do with do not spend it. They also take advantage of the tax avoidance systems which, structurally, only the super wealthy can avail themselves of. So both their earnings and their spendings return less Revenue to the Economy. If you were to distribute that wealth more evenly over the population then no earning tax avoidance would be possible and the money would be spent, generating Economic Activity which benefits everyone.
This is dreamland. Who is going to do this even distribution? Are you going to take all the wealth off these people and distribute it? If so, how? It's pure idealism.

In the real world, some people are extremely good at making money. Oddly enough they are not keen on having it taken off them. If you introduce a policy which removes their wealth they will simply up sticks and generate their money in a more benign regime. Or not bring trade here in the first place.

People who don't have much money are always resentful of those that do. It's just a fact of life and every political system that has tried this equality for all stuff, still ends up with the elite at the top, complete with their mega yachts.

Life isn't fair. Best plan is not to start from here :cool:. If we want the UK economy to do well we need to encourage business. We need to encourage risk takers and people with business ideas to invest.

Starmer today decided to pre-empt the budget with a positively bizarre statement that the bus fare cap is being moved from £2 to £3. Various labour commentators popped up saying that £1 was affordable. It's a 50% increase, and mostly borne by the less well off. The "working people". You couldn't make it up the tone deaf nature of this lot.
 
This is dreamland. Who is going to do this even distribution? Are you going to take all the wealth off these people and distribute it? If so, how? It's pure idealism.

In the real world, some people are extremely good at making money. Oddly enough they are not keen on having it taken off them. If you introduce a policy which removes their wealth they will simply up sticks and generate their money in a more benign regime. Or not bring trade here in the first place.

People who don't have much money are always resentful of those that do. It's just a fact of life and every political system that has tried this equality for all stuff, still ends up with the elite at the top, complete with their mega yachts.

Life isn't fair. Best plan is not to start from here :cool:. If we want the UK economy to do well we need to encourage business. We need to encourage risk takers and people with business ideas to invest.

Starmer today decided to pre-empt the budget with a positively bizarre statement that the bus fare cap is being moved from £2 to £3. Various labour commentators popped up saying that £1 was affordable. It's a 50% increase, and mostly borne by the less well off. The "working people". You couldn't make it up the tone deaf nature of this lot.

Mate - it was a thought experiment to illustrate the reality of concentrating wealth within a small minority while at the same time taking away an amount of earnings from the rest of society to do so. The tax take is reduced with concentrated minority super-wealth, it is not increased. And wealth is actively "trickling up" (not down) in order to concentrate that wealth into a minority holding.
I didn't ever say that we should "take away" wealth. So please try not to put words in my mouth.
I suppose you could interpret my words as a desire to decrease the rate at which wealth accumulates and concentrates into the hands of a tiny minority...

You may well be right that poor can be resentful of rich - but that is not the point of my post, nor is it my own feeling.

Is it your point that "oh well the poor are just resentful but we can't/shouldn't do anything because *insert some reason her*".

The fact that some might be resentful is just a side bar.
It is categorically not a reason to ignore concerns, or do nothing, or to not to talk about alternatives that would improve yours and my own life experiences.


I don't disagree that we need business for the Economy to thrive. However, the structure of the subsequent sharing of that "profit" does need to be scrutinised if the wealth is not to be continued to concentrate away from the vast majority of the population - because as I've shown, this categorically does not help the Economy and it certainly does not help the vast majority of those that contribute their work to the Economy for the creation of wealth if it just ends up being sucked upwards.

Unless you happen to be super-wealthy, I happen to be talking about you too. FOR you - and for everyone on this forum.
 
Do you believe in home ownership?

You know the benefits of having investment in land and the benefits of a growing asset

It’s hilarious how Tory supporters are massively supportive of property ownership but twist themselves inside out claiming that it’s a terrible thing for councils to own property.
I believe in the merits and benefits of home ownership. My natural inclination is centrist Tory but will acknowledge the failings of the previous government made re-election implausible.

Nor do I condemn councils (government) who should rightly step in to provide those unable buy with decent accommodation.

Home ownership and council housing is not mutually exclusive - they have an important complimentary role.

That you believe I somehow need to twist myself to make the above three statements perhaps says more about you than me.
 
I see one of the top tax barristers Robert Venables KC is being prosecuted by HMRC for............... tax evasion for the last nine years.
 
This is dreamland. Who is going to do this even distribution? Are you going to take all the wealth off these people and distribute it? If so, how? It's pure idealism.
A common misrepresentation of the argument which deliberately muddles the issue.
It's not about equal distribution, it's about raising money to pay for public services etc. Easiest to take it from those who have it in excess.
In the real world, some people are extremely good at making money.
More of the mega rich simply inherit it.
Oddly enough they are not keen on having it taken off them. If you introduce a policy which removes their wealth they will simply up sticks and generate their money in a more benign regime. Or not bring trade here in the first place.
Let them ouef off. They can't take the land, property, businesses, workforce, clients, customers, etc or conduct all transactions secretly
People who don't have much money are always resentful of those that do. It's just a fact of life and every political system that has tried this equality for all stuff, still ends up with the elite at the top, complete with their mega yachts.
Higher taxes means smaller yachts etc
Life isn't fair. Best plan is not to start from here :cool:. If we want the UK economy to do well we need to encourage business. We need to encourage risk takers and people with business ideas to invest.
This 'risk taker" idea is just a myth. Most of what we need involves very little risk. An economy where there are higher wages and higher public spending is likely to be much more productive, as is obvious if you choose to look around. What goes around comes around.
Starmer today decided to pre-empt the budget with a positively bizarre statement that the bus fare cap is being moved from £2 to £3. Various labour commentators popped up saying that £1 was affordable. It's a 50% increase, and mostly borne by the less well off. The "working people". You couldn't make it up the tone deaf nature of this lot.
Starmer is a clumsy berk.

So many of these posts are about protecting the wealth of the mega rich, even coming from people who are dependent on the state and public services one way or another, i.e. about 99% of us. Ridiculous! Farcical! Get real!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%
PS this might help, have a flip through: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Debt/lliTBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA2&printsec=frontcover
 
Last edited:
Mate - it was a thought experiment to illustrate the reality of concentrating wealth within a small minority while at the same time taking away an amount of earnings from the rest of society to do so. The tax take is reduced with concentrated minority super-wealth, it is not increased. And wealth is actively "trickling up" (not down) in order to concentrate that wealth into a minority holding.
I didn't ever say that we should "take away" wealth. So please try not to put words in my mouth.
I suppose you could interpret my words as a desire to decrease the rate at which wealth accumulates and concentrates into the hands of a tiny minority...

You may well be right that poor can be resentful of rich - but that is not the point of my post, nor is it my own feeling.

Is it your point that "oh well the poor are just resentful but we can't/shouldn't do anything because *insert some reason her*".

The fact that some might be resentful is just a side bar.
It is categorically not a reason to ignore concerns, or do nothing, or to not to talk about alternatives that would improve yours and my own life experiences.


I don't disagree that we need business for the Economy to thrive. However, the structure of the subsequent sharing of that "profit" does need to be scrutinised if the wealth is not to be continued to concentrate away from the vast majority of the population - because as I've shown, this categorically does not help the Economy and it certainly does not help the vast majority of those that contribute their work to the Economy for the creation of wealth if it just ends up being sucked upwards.

Unless you happen to be super-wealthy, I happen to be talking about you too. FOR you - and for everyone on this forum.
I cannot think of a single major civilisation in which wealth, power and influence did not end up concentrated in the hands of a few.

Small communities may have been more egalitarian - although leadership through experience and wisdom would also be concentrated amongst a few ( mainly the elders)

Wealth allows consumption of the best a society can offer and the acquisition of that which endows status. Today this may involve private jets, yachts, mansions, and "unnecessary" extravagance. In older societies it would be evidenced by being well fed, owning the best bow and arrow, etc.

Characteristics - ambition, health, appearance, intellect, parentage, etc etc are individual, not shared evenly or equally across populations. This inevitably impacts relationships within society.

That the cream rises to the top may be an inappropriate analogy. But a homogonous mix of gravel if vibrated ("social interaction") will also see the larger pieces rise to the top.

In a society, taxation, legislation or wealth redistribution will not stably or permanently redress social imbalances. A realistic long term goal is to optimise outcomes through compromise.

Seeking absolute solutions through dogma driven belief in "fairness" is futile. Intrinsically unstable structures will fail - often catastrophically. The blind pursuit of income and wealth under the pretence of fairness or "affordability" needs to be conditioned by realism.

Squeeze until the pips squeak is not a recipe for social harmony but its ultimate failure.
 
Small communities may have been more egalitarian
Not really. There was always the Squire or the Lord of the Manor. Or the big chief or warlord or whatever. It's human nature, we have pecking order ingrained from our earliest days in the school playing ground. We're not very different from the other primates in that regard. I've always fancied being a bonobo; they are very chilled and spend most of their time having sex. Make love not war 😄.
 
Back
Top