ChatterBank0 min ago
If You Were The Pm For Long Enough To Do One Major Thing
47 Answers
what would it be?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DangerUXD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
because some see that figure, 150k, and believe that's way too much, some sort of perverted envy, we really have to start thinking that not all of those who earn higher wages, or own businesses are shysters, and should be punished at every level.
You are also right Naomi, those people may well have private schools for the children, and private medical care, and so not taking money out of the state.
some low earners should get state help, housing and council tax benefits. I worked all hours, didn't have a massive salary, but got by, it's what you do. I wish i could have had a lot more, to buy the home i am in, i didn't and couldn't.
You are also right Naomi, those people may well have private schools for the children, and private medical care, and so not taking money out of the state.
some low earners should get state help, housing and council tax benefits. I worked all hours, didn't have a massive salary, but got by, it's what you do. I wish i could have had a lot more, to buy the home i am in, i didn't and couldn't.
It's not envy - that's a trite belittling of my basic socialist (with a small 's') tenet of 'reasonable equality' - ie everyone should have a fair/basic minimum (which they will work for) and those who work hard should have a decent amount more.
At what point should we draw a line and say "that's ridiculous" - perhaps £150,000 is too low - but what about a footballer on £50,000 per week - is that sensible?
At what point should we draw a line and say "that's ridiculous" - perhaps £150,000 is too low - but what about a footballer on £50,000 per week - is that sensible?
Dave, I'd like to see a society where everyone has enough too - but you cannot expect to have a 'fair distribution of wealth' without a fair distribution of labour. That would be like saying I'll go to university, get my qualifications and then work 100 hours a week for years building a factory; you leave school at 16 with no qualifications and work 40 hours a week in that factory - and we'll both get paid the same. That's equal. Is it?
as much as i don't care for football, i don't think the majority of footballers get that kind of money, those that do, it is obscene, if you consider what we pay nurses. Footballers careers are relatively short, one would hope the very high earners would save money for a rainy day, when their career is over.
it's not about envy - that dismissively ducks the argument imo em - I'm all for as many people as possible earning high wages. It's about challenging our cultural acceptance of big wage differentials justified by very little hard evidence. The banks played that one right to its limit to all our cost.
It doesn't wash in countries like Norway, which also has higher levels of social capital than we do here: I read recently the Swiss are worried about rising wage differentials because of their adverse social impact.
It doesn't wash in countries like Norway, which also has higher levels of social capital than we do here: I read recently the Swiss are worried about rising wage differentials because of their adverse social impact.
yes, sloopy, the gap between rich and poor has been growing faster here than anywhere else
http://
(Daily Mail, a bit over a year ago.)
That must explain why the country's economy is so strong today.
http://
(Daily Mail, a bit over a year ago.)
That must explain why the country's economy is so strong today.
Am I wrong in thinking that we have a pyramid, with very few top earners and a great mass at the bottom. Therefore it wouldn't solve the country's problems by simply redistributing income. The only way out is to become more competitive in world markets which is difficult as the West is so debt ridden and people have unrealistic expectations.
