Nope, it was a statement of fact, too many people want to blame someone else.

Because, daily newspaper scaremongering and propaganda spreading to one side, the vast majority of "ordinary" working people have seen and are continuing to see a very definite fall in their living standards since 2010 - now you can blame that on the Tories if you like, I don't personally pin all the blame on them because it obvious that budgets had to be cut by whoever was in government, but for the vast majority of those who's monthly budget pays the mortgage, the bills, puts food on the table and pays for one holiday a year, those people are hurting and many of those are only hanging on to liquidity because of tax credits, they are also usually the same people for whom zero hour or short term contracts are the norm and its very difficult to look beyond the next month for any sort of stability.

Thats the reality of life for millions who would fall into the description of "having f'k all", they aren't (as the printed Murdoch media would like you to believe) the scrounging class, they aren't drawing £30k a year on benefits and not getting out of bed until 2pm every day, they aren't the third generation to never have had a job, those stereotypes either do not exist or exist in very insignificant numbers - the vast majority of benefits claimants are IN work, but do not have savings, do not have secure employment and do not earn much above (if anything above) the minimum wage - they are the millions who have f'k all.

And its only human that they might look at those earning even £40k and above and believe that that group should contribute a little more.

Its not in question that those on higher salaries have often worked hard to get to where they are, its also not in question that those on higher salaries have also had a bit of good fortune to get to where they are, I've been there and I'm honest enough to acknowledge this.

So what sort of "society" would you like to see, one where each pays a fair share according to their means or one where the lucky get to keep more of their gains than the not-so-lucky, whilst still sharing all of the same benefits - a fair or unfair society, in so far as anything can be fair ?

That's me discounted from your 'politics of envy' claim, then. And several more on here, I suggest.



You still haven't 'explained' it. As I have very, very simply and briefly illustrated.

I have not said that it is not a "valid opinion". Although opinions, to be taken seriously, usually require at least something to back them up.



In all those lovely jobs out there, eh?

And that's not mentioning those who [ido[/i work – but who are on very low incomes.

'Politics of envy', you claim?

It seems that you have a long-term, quite openly stated, dislike of the many people who work, but who are paid low wages, and it seems that you imagine:

1) that anyone doing those jobs – however necessary to society as a whole or to an individual business – should be poorly paid;

2) and that anyone who wants more money should somehow magic themselves into one of the countless superbly-paid jobs that are going.

And you claim that I have an understanding deficit ...

Yeah. I mean, once all the dustmen have 'worked hard' and 'taken the opportunities that are out there', we can just wish our household waste away.

Do you have any idea what a "reffuse professional" gets paid?

put it this way, I bet you're at least 10k behind them.

Just done a quick search and they seem to be on around £7.50 per hour. And WTF do you know about my circumstances to be able to make such a wager anyway?

Regardless, the point stands. There are jobs that are essential to the smooth running of our society. These are often some of the lowest paid jobs available. It's hardly the 'politics of envy' to expect that those performing these vital roles should be able to afford a decent standard of living.

Nice.

I've noticed that people who bang on about the 'politics of envy' actually display a deep envy of anyone who receives any state support whatsoever.

The irony amuses me.

People like Standee are incapable of comprehending this point.

If we all woke up one morning to find that 100% of the population was educated to PhD level we'd [istill[/i need some of them to handle the menial tasks that he so despises. Then he'd have to find some other excuse for sneering at them.

When the questions get too tough, you repeat this ballocks.

oh dear, I dont

I ask why people who want something for nothing think they are entitled to it.

but there's no balance here, so it's not really a discussion so much as a lecture from those that feel they know best.

You always adopt this attitude when your arguments are comprehensively debunked, too.

Then answer the question, it wasn't hard. You have gone off on a rant about something totally different.

Let's try to address the issues from a different angle.

It is now fairly generally accepted thatThe Spirit Level[/i showed, wider inequality causes increased social problems.

Further to the latter point, lower income inequality works better for EVERYONE in a society – including those at the top end of it.

My interpretation of posters here is that few if any are asking for sacrifices from others in order to improve their own lives.

But if it is the case that lower income inequality works better for EVERYONE in a society, then:

• why would anyone not wish to do something about it, since it would be worth it even on the basis of enlightened self-interest alone;

• how do we go about doing something about it?