Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Keith, there are others here with knowledge of the markets, you yet again misrepresent me. Peter and Ross in particular have in depth knowledge and even though (or perhaps because) Ross and I come at it from different political perspectives we can have some very interesting and constructive discussions. For that reason I can respect his viewpoint where it differs from mine. Reg, though, he has demonstrated no knowledge at all and I see nothing of value in anything he has said about this subject only a layman's prejudice.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
post 36
just spotted that alec, very true.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Peter.
Please drop your level of attack mode and start taking my post's as coming from a person who is not politically motivated. My motivation is family and community.
Of course I was not referring to the scum criminals; they don't belong in our society (another thread).
I am talking about the ordinary decent poor people being a target for all and you hit the nail on the head.
"It is easier to separate 1000 poor people from a fiver than it is to separate one rich person from £5k".
You and others say that with such ease and with seemingly no conscience.
That is the balance that needs correcting.
They, for many reasons, cannot change the way they are being treated, not even by the vote, so they are forced to do what they can to exist.
Help has to start from the top but too many people in this country don't care, they live in their lofty high society, oblivious as to what is really going on around them.
I have no problem with people being wealthy; I would like to try it myself one day.
I do have a problem with people not getting their share of that wealth.
Again it's all about balance.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Usually, those with high incomes have trained, qualified and gone to Uni to get the necessary education so they can progress in their chosen career; they will also have gone on to train in what they want to do.
Usually, those on low income have little or no education or qualifications, so cannot get high income jobs. There are obviously exceptions to this, but the important or relevant word is "usually".
It's not necessarily just hard-work that brings high financial rewards or benefits, many are "over-active under-achievers.
Roger
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
We all have different aspirations in life
For many the work - life balance is about "working to live" and their sense of worth and fulfilment comes from family, friends and community, many do not wish to be a "high flyer" but do want to be treated with dignity and respect and to get a "fair crack of the whip".
Education and training are important, but for many the opportunity to get this is denied or severely limited through fees etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - How do you establish in your terms a 'fair share of wealth'?
Ross is right about aspiration. There are all sorts of people, some have ambition and work hard, others prefer a more leisurely lifestyle and will work, look after themselves and manage.
Some people work particularly hard and take risks with their money and their futures, some will fail and other be successful.
Indeed maybe we all go through these various phases in our lives, I myself have done so with a quality of life having taken over some years ago from striving and working all hours.
Sadly there are others who are just happy to live on benefits.
There are people want to rob the hard working and successful in order to give it to scroungers. I hope that's not what you mean.
That said, of course I fully support a temporary safety net for those who fall on bad times to help get them back on their own two feet. I also want a decent system that helps those who through genuine ill-health or disability are unable to help themselves, such people do not fall into my definition of scroungers of course.
The problem we have is that the safety net has gone beyond what it should be and there are too many who take advantage and treat what should be short-term help as a lifestyle.
So please define what you mean by 'fare shares'?
One problem I find with such ideology is that in a process of trying to establish some kind of wealth distribution wealth creation is damaged leaving a much smaller pot so everyone is worse off. The old levelling down to the lowest common denominator and economic crises that left wing politics usually results in.