These people are idiots aren’t they

Alston asked a group of Glasgow kids who it is that should help those in poverty. “The rich people,” one shot back. “It’s unfair to have people earning billions and other people living on benefits.” Out of the mouths of babes.

How do you get the benefits if there are no richer people to tax to pay them?

26 thoughts on “These people are idiots aren’t they”

  1. How do you get the benefits if there are no richer people to tax to pay them?

    That’s a bridge the Guardian will happily cross once all the “rich people” have been liquidated.

    Anyway, I wonder how many people in Britain “earn billions” and how long would they stay once they find out what’s in store for them?

  2. Anyway, all successful polities base their economic policies on what schoolchildren say. We should expand the process to include other areas.

  3. Breeding should never be subsidised. I can’t remember the name of the recent study that showed the sprogs of the more successful ie intelligent and able to learn and practise deferred gratification, replaced the less successful ie thick, feckless or unfortunate, from medieval times to the recent past, to the mutual benefit of society. (Combined with property rights). The enlarging benefit class would return us to the condition of subSaharan Africa where only the violent get to keep and accumulate their goodies

  4. Ljh- and we subsidise feckless breeding in Africa too.

    The average IQ in Britain must be dropping as we keep fighting natural selection

  5. The politics of envy.

    I remember reading a book by an academic who escaped from Poland during the Iron Curtain days. He placed the blame for the rise of the socialists on the cafe culture of France and in particular Paris. There the intellectuals were so jealous of the coarse mercantile class and their riches, all the money, and they could not argue metaphysics and all that crap. The mother of socialism is jealousy and envy.

  6. “Elizabeth Malcolm, 43, has never had a job. She lives in a two-bedroom council flat in Glasgow with her three children, one grandchild, two cats and a hamster.”

    I have some hamster recipes for her.

  7. ‘Poverty is a political issue and airbrushing its causes does a disservice to the very families who are in need’

    By declaring it political, Ryan leaves her wallet in her bag, and takes out your wallet. She cares so deeply she’ll take your money to help. She is going to get to Heaven by spending YOUR money.

    An omniscient God sees through this shi+.

  8. Lefty foot soldiers missed school the day the teacher read Aesop’s Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs.

    Lefty ideology is you take stuff from people who have it and give it to people who don’t. There! Problem fixed!

    Problem is: you can only do it once.

    But as Jollygreenman notes above, the real root of socialism is envy of the rich. The socialists’ foot soldiers are just useful idiots, easily swayed by platitudes. Frances Ryan is one such dumbass. A useful idiot. The objective is NOT to help the poor; it is to destroy the rich. She dithers with how to help the poor, when that is not even the objective.

  9. Anon, that link is just a fucking car crash. “I never got found to it”. Fucking hell. That’s what you say about visiting Rome or something, not working for a living.

  10. The ‘rich people’ in their area probably include gangsters and drug dealers

    Perhaps they should take it up with them?

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    “The politics of envy.”

    Yes, but not in the way you and most of here mean. At some point in the past few years envy went from being a deadly sin to a leading virtue.

  12. Thou shalt not covet.

    Much of the bible is dreadful tosh but that instruction has its merits. I wonder who invented it. Maybe a priest in Jerusalem who didn’t want the oiks coveting the Temple’s wealth?

    Once they start nicking asses there’ll be no stopping them.

  13. I’m not in favour of taxes full stop, but having recently seen documentaries on the Paradise and Panama Papers, one can only imagine just how much illicit, untaxed wealth is being hidden offshore by the hyper-rich whilst the rest of us pay obscene percentages of what are relative pittances in contrast.

  14. ‘As a disabled child growing up in the 1990s’

    Whah! Whah! Cheesy appeal to sympathy.

    Post modern problem.

    When I was a kid, if parents didn’t take care of the kids, the kids would be removed from the home. The parents might be charged with criminal neglect.

    Now, if parents don’t take care of the kids, government gives them stuff, even money. Whatkindafool would take care of their kids?

    Hence, we get welfare babies. I wonder if Ryan . . . .

  15. @ Monkey Matt
    Get a grip! For all the seriously rich except the Mafia and its equivalents or the Komsomol graduates who looted Russia, wealth is the accumulation of after-tax income less expenses. Lawyers are coining money by finding ways to stash LICIT wealth where it won’t be raided by greedy and/or corrupt politicians. The illicit wealth doesn’t go via lawyers who could be struck off (out of a job) if they were seen by an envious colleague/clerk to be involved with big-time crooks.

  16. Monkey Matt,

    Question for you: roughly – just any kind of indication will do – by what percentage was David Cameron’s tax bill reduced by routing stuff through the offshore vehicle that he did?

  17. “How do you get the benefits if there are no richer people to tax to pay them?”

    Where does the kid say anything about there being “no richer people”? Or that the help should be paid for with tax, or done by the government?

  18. @NiV,

    The kids don’t say there will be “no richer people” – that’s just a likely effect of their assumption that “the rich people” will help them out.

    And if they were sufficiently astute to postulate a mechanism that such help from “the rich people” was NOT going to be delivered by Govt as a result of punitive taxation, they would not be offering “the rich people” as the solution…

  19. “The kids don’t say there will be “no richer people” – that’s just a likely effect of their assumption that “the rich people” will help them out.”

    Is it? Even assuming that they’re proposing a more-tax-for-benefits solution, we’ve got one now and rich people are still here. They’re not necessarily incompatible.

    And we don’t know that’s their assumption. We’re *assuming* that’s their assumption. There may be other solutions that get people off benefits without eliminating rich people. They might even have meant that it’s unfair on the rich people to have to pay for their benefits, and so it’s obviously in the rich people’s best interests to change the system so it’s no longer necessary. Unlikely, but possible.

    “And if they were sufficiently astute to postulate a mechanism that such help from “the rich people” was NOT going to be delivered by Govt as a result of punitive taxation, they would not be offering “the rich people” as the solution…”

    Yes, but we’re assuming that. We’re assuming they had a particular mechanism and solution in mind, and then condemning them for their stupidity in picking that solution. That doesn’t seem entirely fair.

    Granted, the solution is likely to be the one they’re thinking of. But many of the other, better solutions could be described in the same terms.

    Suppose they recognise it as a skills gap. Some people know how to do certain jobs and others don’t. The one’s who do get rich because those skills are in short supply. How are the ones without skills going to acquire them? Ultimately, the only way is for the people with the skills to teach them; with courses and mentoring and on-the-job training. So who’s going to help? The rich people. It’s unfair on everyone if some have been given the knowledge/skills to earn billions and won’t/can’t share them.

    Since the tax-for-benefits solution is so widely proposed, it’s likely that that’s the only one they’ve been taught. They may have assumed it because they know of no other, and their education hasn’t told them of the flaws in the idea, (so it is not really their fault if they don’t know). The Guardian certainly assumed that was what they meant. And we assumed that the Guardian was right!

    But if you found some way to clear the skills blockage completely, and teach the poor kids they need to do the skills-in-short-supply jobs, then supply would rise to meet demand and those high wages would disappear, but with more people producing society would get *richer*, not poorer. (In the sense that the poor of today are richer – live better, easier, healthier lives – than the rich of 500 years ago.) So while there would be no people earning billions, and no people on benefits, there would still be plenty of rich people.

    That’s the consequence of the ideal free market solution. Who exactly is being an idiot for not seeing it?

  20. Monkeymatt – investigate the issue for yourself rather than being fed a story by the media.
    Now offshore money – how much of it is post tax? As in the recipient has already paid tax on it?

    Now what rules does the country the person lives in have regarding bringing money into the country from that offshore account?

    Oh and not forgetting – why can we set up our own tax policies in this country and the people in that country not be allowed to do the same there? What makes them different?

  21. NiV

    “The Guardian certainly assumed that was what they meant. And we assumed that the Guardian was right!”

    Basically yes. That’s what we’re complaining about. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *