I could dig ditches for 18 years, had I an iPod, sensible shift allocation and good nutrition. I would struggle to manage 18 years of study without Adderall.

The policy of expanding public services with its primary drivers of inefficiency and wastage was a move of previously unknown arseholery by the labour government.

Lord_Griff wrote:

The policy of expanding public services with its primary drivers of inefficiency and wastage was a move of previously unknown arseholery by the labour government.

That and de-regulating the financial sector, sure.

Mod74 wrote:

They're rewarded above the average. So they're taxed above the average.

How is this difficult?

Are they rewarded above average because as people they work harder than the average person? Because they are smarter than the average person? It is hardly a meritocracy is it?

How do you reconcile your statement with those who do nothing and are yet rewarded?

That goes for public spending initiatives too.

Basically the relevant professionals need to not be bobbins. Or we pour resources into developing the literal Culture AIs so they can eventually do all that shlep for us.

djchump wrote:

Lord_Griff wrote:

Ditch digging isn't hard with a digger, but that is inconsequential. The rate of tax is not fixed as we have seen with recent increases. What I am trying to rationalise is whether a tiered tax rate is better than a flat rate. The latter not porpotionally reducing an individuals reward for their hard work above and beyond the average.

So is "hard work" now the only thing that distinguished people who earn shitloads of money and those that don't?

Bullshit.

No.

I'm not sure "being given a stipend to stop you from starving, homeless, just about" is best deemed a "reward".

Lord_Griff wrote:

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

What's the parallel of that bit in the tax system then?

It'd be more like "the richest guy had a word with the barman and asked him to reduce the price of their drinks otherwise he'd fuck off to another pub. And anyway he'd throw him an extra fiver now and again straight into his pocket, rather than going to the brewery, for the favour." And then there's the bit at the end of the story where the bar get massively into debt because it isn't taking enough money and starts serving watered down beer (apart from to the rich guy who has another quiet word).

Basically, reducing economics to these simple everyday situations is always a sleight of hand trick.

Mod74 wrote:

Lord_Griff wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

They're rewarded above the average. So they're taxed above the average. How is this difficult?

Are they rewarded above average because as people they work harder than the average person? Because they are smarter than the average person? It is hardly a meritocracy is it? How do you reconcile your statement with those who do nothing and are yet rewarded?

They work harder, they play harder, they pay taxes harder, greed is good, red braces for breakfast and all that other bullshit you live your life by.

And yes, of course people are rewarded for "doing nothing". They might be parents, carers, volunteers.

But no, everyone who doesn't have a high paid job is just leaching you and Gordon's rightful spoils. Sure.

Don't be a twat mod.

I'm not the one suggesting people at the bottom aren't playing fair. You're the one suggesting those at the top not playing fair is fine.

People not playing fair at either end of the spectrum should be discouraged.

Yes, but who's paying for the fecking beer?!

Thing is, merely trumpeting "derp go get jorb" isn't really addressing the recalcitrance to do that where it exists. Policymakers have to be bags keener than that, and the knowledge bases to enable them are ever growing.

If there's a responsibility deficit - and there detectably is - that's, like, ground fucking zero of any initiative. That's where you spend energies.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Mod, the benefit state is there to help people at the bottom who, for whatever circumstances put them there are unable to, or don't have the means to, get out. This is perfectly acceptable and an admirable solution. I have no problem with this. Looking at unemployment rates Vs available jobs I can't help but think that there has been an abuse of the state benefit system that has increased people's levels of self entitlement and decreased their work ethic. This is not a broad sweeping statement, but it surely applies to a reasonable chunk of the population. Again, I am not berating those who have a legitiamte claim for assistance from the state.

Thing is, I can't help but think with the 2 common narratives of "the lazy, workshy chavs are bleeding the economy dry and damaging the country" vs "the greedy, rich bankers and financial psychos are bleeding the economy dry and damaging the country/world", that the financial types (TBF, small subset of the finanical types) would seem to have quantifiably done far more damage to the country and world economies than the unwashed dossers could ever hope to do.

I mean, what with the whole financial meltdown, sub-prime, banks and whatnot, benefits being paid to some lazy cunts would seem to be a piss in the ocean, is it not? Any figures? Is benefit cheat/frauds even a thing worth anyone's time worrying about, compared to tax-dodgers? Which gets more money back for the country?

Even if doing that does nothing for the genuinely feckless, it at least removes one of the key excuses for their lifestyle.

djchump wrote:

I mean, what with the whole financial meltdown, sub-prime, banks and whatnot, benefits being paid to some lazy cunts would seem to be a piss in the ocean, is it not? Any figures? Is benefit cheat/frauds even a thing worth anyone's time worrying about, compared to tax-dodgers? Which gets more money back for the country?

Benefit fraud is not a major issue financially (I forget the actual amounts). Creating a new system to catch them all would cost more, while making it more difficult for genuine claimants, perhaps even denying them what the system is supposed to accord them.