Destined to become a ginge...

Or alternatively a reflection that (as a non-child-owning,
middle-class, [almost] middle aged non-base rate tax payer) I and those
like me are a) a minority and b) a convenient source of extra revenue
when the Government (of any political persuasion) decides that they
need to buy a little loyalty with the teeming masses.

After all - most people care what happens to starving little kiddies
but who cares if people like me and Cheryl get to keep a little less of
our pay packet?

But that wouldn't accord with you having decided that I'm a nithing.

Phil

 

Fair enough. I just read enough little Englanders thinking in a Daily
Mail-stylee about how unfair it is that the poor old middle classes in
their fucking Barratt home with their comfortable lifestyles should
have to put their hands in their pockets to support the selfish
grasping underclass who should just bally well go out and get a proper
job, what?

 

Yes you are. Because you have it.

I see that as a good thing, and you see it as bad (clearly). I
suppose that underlines the difference between our ideological
standpoints.

You really think that the pathetically inadequate redistribution on
income in the UK is motivated by getting loyalty from the teeming
masses?

I don't. I think it's motivated by the desire to do the right thing.

Let's reconcile that to some of Jesus' teachings, shall we?

 

Okay.

Your post at 09:15:04 GMT certainly reads like you don't think it's A
Good Thing, though (which is demonstrably is).

 

I think what is a good thing? That I pay more net tax than most other
'classifications'?

Why would I want to see that as a Good Thing(TM)? Social conscience?

Sure - it is my duty to pay taxes and so I pay them. Render unto Ceaser
and all that.. Doesn't mean I have to accept that the tax burden that
society cares to place upon me is fair and equitable.

Phil

 

Ah - right. So regardless of any benefit I or my family might derive
from either a) the money itself or b) the benefits that the Government
might choose to pay out I am expected to cheerfully hand over 40%+ of my
pay?

And before you ask - yes - I do have a private pension and pay for
private healthcare - because the Government has a remarkably poor
record of taking care of its citizens in both those areas.

I believe in personal responsibility for ones life. That means a) I
work hard to provide for me and my dependents and b) I attempt to
ensure to the best of my means and ability that that provision will
continue after I am unable to work.

Why should I not reasonably expect others to do at least some of that?

Partly. Just look at what happens in the Budgets leading up to a
general election. Look at how the parties try to empasise that "under
us you will be £23.45 per week better off". Consider what the Romans
meant by "panem et circensis" and reflect that human nature is
*exactly* the same now as it was 2000 years ago.

I'm sure that there are and were politicians of conviction in
Government. I am equally sure that there are politicians who will change
their morals and ethics to ensure that they are the ones in power after
the next election - and who would not hesitate to load the dice a
little with sweeteners.

Then you have a far far more generous view of human nature than I have.

"If you owe taxes, then pay taxes. If respect then respect."

Taxes I pay, respect I give to those who deserve it. People who carry
out the requirement of their convictions (like Tony Benn). People who
don't change like the wind because a 'focus group' tells them that
such-and-such is the flavour of the month and should be adopted as
policy.

Those teachings you mean? Or the "let you works of charity be seen in
secret so that you Father who see all will reward you"?

Phil

 

Those of means helping the poor.

Yes.

What do the teachings of Jesus Christ say about the poor?

FFS, I'm more of a Christian than you.

 

you want to read J.G.Ballard's "Millenium People", you do - it's
fucking hilarious.

 

Well, yeah. Because we all (private citizens, governments) have a
duty to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves.

Because sometimes people are unable to provide for themselves and
their dependants.

You're probably right.

Something along the lines of Matthew 25:31-46

 

It's in my 2005 book pile (a great deal of which is still in my basket
at amazon.com)

 

Add The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. And have you read
Brick Lane yet? I've just got round to it <waves at halla>

 

Ever thought that people may think that the people responsible for creating
and maintaining the scheme for re-distributing the wealth have and are
making a complete arse of it, rather than the principal itself?

I don't think anyone begrudges benefits given to people genuinely down
on their luck or in a bad situation.

I do think a lot of people think that the current way this is done is, frankly,
shite. 90% of the nations wealth is with 10% of the population. How come
the mega rich can get away with fiddling the books?



frag

 

Sure - I think it a very good thing. The thing is I don't think that is
where my taxes are ending up. In fact I'm certain that a very small
percentage of my tax goes to helping the poor. Note that I don't class
someone as 'poor' because they can't afford a second TV or don't eat
steak 3 times a week - I class people as poor because they don't have
enough to eat or don't have the means to provide a roof over their
heads.

"Religion that the Father accepts is this: to look after widows and
orphans in their distress and to keep oneself unstained from the world"

And note - this is in the context of believers - we are commanded to
support the household of Christ (in fact in the Book of Acts the
believers held all things in common and gave freely to those in the
church who were in need - the first example of "from each according to
their means, to each according to their needs" that I'm aware of). And
I do - freely and happily support those in my community who are in
need.

Supporting those who will not work? We are commanded to ignore them. In
fact more than that - to shun them in order to teach them not to be a
burden.

Yes Ben. Assuming you equate Christianity with philanthropy of course..

Phil.

 

I have. I was emailed the recommendation, and have been too busy
arguing here to answer the email, shamefully.

It's at my apartment, in Mount Toberead.

 

Is it about middle class professionals who become somehow detached
from normal society, and are lured into a lifestyle that allows them
to obey their more primal urges?

Just for a change, like.

 

well, of course. A much more political take on things though compared
to, say, Supercannes.

 

Hmm. I was hoping the pony had found a second trick, as it were, but not
holding my breath.

 

Jesus did.

 

And I'm not in favour of that, either, obviously, but because that
exists doesn't affect any other absolutes.

 

his older stuff is a lot more diverse. He's old, FFS.