hodgy0_2

Everything I have achieved in life, I (and my wife) have done on our own

I provide for my wife and five children with very very little from the state, just schools and the NHS

I have taken financial risks and been rewarded for them, I have NEVER blamed anyone else in this world for any failures or lack of success in my life (unlike virtually every whining cVnt on this forum)

Financial risks that very few on this forum would dare take

I am responsible for making something of my life

And THAT is the message I give my children

If that makes me a champagne socialist, great I am happy with that

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

'Taking money off them'? You mean throwing slightly less money at them. Your attitude embodies the current entitlement culture the benefits system has created, they are entitled to the money they've always had, so any reduction is an infringement - no, it's a change in priorities, a long overdue one.

Dingdongler

Well you seem to have completely missed my point, perhaps on purpose? I never said you don't deserve your success, all my previous posts over the years should show I applaud people who make something of themselves. (And I know you have)

The issue is you spout pseudo socailist clap trap whilst living a very privelaged lifestyle. I'm not for a second saying you don't deserve that lifestyle, I genuinely mean that, but it's a very privelaged lifestyle none the less.

As a consequence your children benefit ie you could move to a lovely house in the shires, lots of outside space for your beautiful children (and I mean that genuinely) to enjoy. They get to go to some of the best schools, enjoy skiing trips etc.

All this is fine in my opinion, why should they not benefit from their parent's hard work?


But then you start spouting your socailist clap trap about true meritocracy ie 100% inheritance tax. Your own children have been given a massive head start in life yet you don't want a plumber to be able to leave his kids a £250k house when he dies???

How do you see that as fair??

That is what I call champagne socailism and believe me its nothing to be proud of

hodgy0_2

but you miss my point, I would combine that with very very low taxation on your "effort" in work

just tax unearned inherited wealth

my children have been given a headstart in life through my and my wifes hard work, the same should be true of a plumber son

and just as I would not leave any wealth to my children, it would be up to them to generate their own, nor would the plumber be able to

listen, it is a philisophical point more than anything

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

But it's a not-at-all-realistic proposition - people would just spend all their wealth rather than have it taken by the taxman; where would the public funding come from then?

Also it's hardly a meritocracy if some kids are being sent to boarding school and making connections, against the others who are sent to state school by less-wealthy parents - it's what we've got now! By the time inheritence comes into it tracks have already been laid and careers/attitudes forged.

JTaylor

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...en-buffet.html

Dingdongler

Thank you, some great quotes from there. One of which being yours and very relevant to this discussion.


QUOTE JTaylor

My old Political Science lecturer used to argue hodgy's point (he also, and this is absolutely true, wore a Che Guevara t-shirt). To be fair his presentation was cogent, he was the real deal - no champagne socialist.


And one from Hodgy which made me giggle


QUOTE Hodgy

you talk about your family and that fine- my parents are rich my children will be rich

hodgy0_2

agreed, i just raised it as a philisophical point as i did in the buffet thread

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-...en-buffet.html

good thread that

in many ways am quite happy with the status quo

David Lock

So well done - what do you want, a gold medal?

You mustn't forget that there are plenty of people who have tried very hard but NOT succeeded as you have. Perhaps because they were unlucky - it does happen. Perhaps because they took risks, as you have done, but became unstuck. Probably because they weren't as intelligent as you. But please don't assume that hard work and sacrifice works for everyone.

So I can understand that these people moan a bit when they lose their homes. They are human after all

David

hodgy0_2

i agree David

my point it is, and I have posted on it before that wealth inequality is getting worse and underpinned by the status quo

we are moving to a period of wage poverty, and working harder is simply not going to be enough for the vast majority of the population

so the "philisophical" point i am making re inherited wealth is an attempt at levelling the playing field

it won't ever happen

i don't want a medal, but neither do i demonise people less fortunate than myself, as happens daily on these pages

Dingdongler

To be fair Hodgy doesn't demonise people less fortunate, quite the opposite.

David Lock

Hodgers - sorry I was a bit harsh. Good of you not to take it the wrong way. Luckily I don't have a Twitter account

David

hodgy0_2

no worries David

it not always easy to get complex ideas etc over on these forums

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

I have some first hand experience of the type of sponger these reforms are meant to relieve us of.

One of my sisters is married to a guy that claims disability benefit, they don't have any kids but always insist on living in a house, even a ground floor flat would be beneath them, every place they have lived (and there has been a few) have been 3 bed semi's, he claims to be mentally ill, but he's not, he just goes to the doctors and plays up merry hell, makes a nuisance of himself until he gets what he want's and does the same at the housing places, in fact everywhere he goes he plays the schizophrenia card and starts shaking his hands saying he can't take it anymore and they are giving him stress, I don't think he is particularly good at it either having spent many years with a real schizophrenic.

Anyhow his most recent rant is about this and how he's losing money because of it.

I do feel for those who are truly in need, but unfortunately something needs to be done as there are far too many scroungers like this screwing and messing up the system, and the powers that be can't be seen to be targeting a specific segment, otherwise they would probably spend more than any potential savings battling in the courts over discrimination and human rights infringements.

change needs to happen as we are already short of affordable housing and I don't see the situation getting any better.

Getting some of the feckless work shy off there ***** would also be another area that needs addressing asap, I know it's been said for years but we really do need to get these people off there ***** and make them go out and pick up rubbish and sweep the streets, give them a scraper and make them get the chewing gum up off the floor that seems to be the scurge of many a city centre, funny the things you notice when you don't live in england much.

shooter007

The trouble with this legislation is that for every one scrounger how many honest and genuine people will be penalised great idea providing the councils have enough one and two bedroomed accomadation for them to move into

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Seems the BBC have been caught out, trying to create a storm that doesn't really exist...

http://order-order.com/2013/07/31/bb...e-sector-firm/

paulr

I would hardly classify ten years of full time education for five kids as "very,very little".

tony de wonderful

They aren't asking for money, just to stay living in some very modest accommodation that they have made their homes.

tony de wonderful

Abolishing inheritance would be liberalism taken to its logical conclusion where all relations are made contractual/transactional and mediated by cash.

Inheritance is a kind of feudal relic, a piece of ascription. The inheritance of property and capital is what is left of the institution of blood in feudal society where birth dictates your rights and responsibilities and social role/job.

It's something of a contradiction that the bourgeois with their mantra of achievement, very much had a place for inheritance which is about the opposite; ascription and birth. I find it hilarious how neo liberal Tories want market and money this everywhere, then sound like Edmund Burke when it comes to family (and by extension inheritance). They are too dumb to see that money erodes all this stuff they cherishe.

Dingdongler

The accommodation costs money to provide. 'They' don't have the money to pay for it, so the tax payer pays. Therefore 'they' are asking for money.

Even my six year old would understand that, I'm surprised a mature Sociology undergraduate finds it so difficult to grasp

tony de wonderful

Should read some Freud, you won't take for granted what 'I' means again.

tony de wonderful

The financial goings on are contingent.

Why not ask why society has to support a class of people who do nothing but own property, who have in effect a special licence backed by law and guns that says they can earn rent for not doing something.

From an economic point of view the 'problem' is that some fairly poor and powerless people in society who live in crummy accommodation, have, in some cases, 'extra' rooms that they don't use. Is this really an absolute problem? There are people in society with many more spare rooms but they aren't targeted by the bedrooms tax rules. It's always aimed at certain people in society.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Excellent post!

I must admit reading these pages I do start to begrudge my taxes paying for these selfish w4nkers' kids education when I have none of my own, but there you go!

Dingdongler

1) They don't earn rent for doing nothing. They have bought the property with taxed income, income they have worked for. The property hasn't just fallen out of the sky, they will have made many sacrifices to afford it, when perhaps others have just spunked their money on a flash car etc
They also take a risk, the price of their asset could fall.

2) Those in society with many more spare rooms as you put it actually are targeted. They pay more stamp duty for starters.

But just in case it hasn't got through your thick Sociology student head yet, the biggest difference is..... THEY ARE NOT ASKING ANYBODY ELSE TO PAY FOR THEIR HOUSE.

If you really can't grasp this you are a bigger idiot than I thought you were.

hodgy0_2

I admit to being afflicted with a curse, it is the inability to see the world through the prism of my own self interest.

Does the “status quo” benefit me, yes absolutely – do I think this is best for everyone else, probably not.

I also believe (something that comes from deep within me and I have held since I can remember) that, given the opportunity, most people can do most things – it is part of my fundamental view on humanity

Imagine how un surprised I was when I recently watch this TED talk (for the lazy 4 mins in)


http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud.html

tony de wonderful

Rent is income one receives for not doing something, i.e, not stopping someone from living in your property. Even Adam Smith, a hero of yours I am sure, saw this as unproductive. Rent seeking creates no wealth, it is only an overhead. It is basically a license. Yes it may have been bought you are right, but originally it wasn't, it was created by someone using power and force. Specifically the enclosure acts in Britain where communal land was carved up into private property.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

This is exactly what troubles me.

I am all for benefit reforms and getting those who do scrounge out to work, but this is one measure even I don't support.

I wonder how it will actually work for those who don't have any income at all. Supposedly, their benefit will be reduced, therefore effectively forcing them into a different home or into poverty, will this really happen? And you do make a valid point about whether there are actually enough 2 or even 1 bed properties for people to move to.

Dingdongler

When did I say rent seeking creates wealth? I didn't. Is being a landlord some sort of achievement or creative pursuit? Of course not, but it's not some kind of evil either. How land was carved up hundreds of years ago is now irrelevant, it's history.

People who rent out their property provide a service for which they charge.

No different to the way you are charged for your food, electricity etc

Or do you think that perhaps you should be given a house, food and electricity for free whilst you have a whale of a time talking endless b8llocks with your fellow Sociology students?

Do you give your landlord all this endless pseudo philosophical tripe every time he asks for his rent??

tony de wonderful

It can't create no wealth and be a service. Make your mind up.

If by service then you mean they provide a 'service' by not kicking you out of their property, then this isn't a 'service' per se but is what Adam Smith meant by rent seeking, i.e money for not doing something.

Dingdongler

It depends how you define wealth creation, and there are many ways to do that, and economists continue to argue the point. As a result we could go off on a tangent, which I think you enjoy doing.

To say the service landlords provide is to not kick you out of their property is juvenile and o'level debating society quality again.

It would be like saying the service the power supplier gives is to not cut your supply off.

The service the landlord gives is to provide you with a property to enjoy as your home. As such it should be properly maintained and safe from hazard.

The bottom line is this though Tony. You are a renter and as such you pay rent because you may well not be able to afford to buy the sort of place you would like to. As a result you are helping the landlord pay his mortgage and bolster his pension pot.

The landlord will become wealthier and when you both retire he will be the one sitting on a beach sipping a cold beer enjoying himself.

And to make you even happier Tony, when he dies he'll pass his properties onto his children who will become rich for doing nothing more than being born. They'll probably leverage those properties and buy even more properties. Happy days!

How does it feel to know that you are directly funding everything you hate about the system? I think it's hilarious and it gives me a semi (and I don't mean the kind you rent out)