Going after the economically disadvantaged!

Caleo

GSM, it seems some family cultures, possibly yours, buck the trend.

A child isn’t born with a work ethic and a determination to succeed. It has to learn those things for itself, preferably by example. An example it won’t be set in a home where generations haven’t worked.

Person who worked damned hard, yes against the odds and without help. I’m merely trying to say that you can instil a work ethic and desire to succeed in your children and that some Conservative voters not only approve of social mobility and want to see more of it, they are personal examples of it.

When say it’s ‘over-egged’, you imply that I’m lying or embroidering the truth. I don’t lie. You come across as envious of success and what it brings.

DaisyAnne

Germanshepherdsmum

You might, though, Caleo, provide your children with the impetus to get on in life. I came from a working class family, had a state education and studied in my own time, while working full time, to become a solicitor. I became a partner in a big City firm. One of my mother’s sayings was ‘there’s no such word as can’t’. And I vote Conservative. Don’t say the Conservatives don’t approve of social mobility.

You seem to like to tell us what an "amazing" person you are*GSM*, how well you have succeeded against the odds and with no one to help.

I end up wondering why it all sounds a bit over-egged and smacking of insecurity. Perhaps it's all to do with how you have learned to measure success.

That was nasty. I’m not the slightest bit insecure. I have never claimed to be amazing, because I’m not. I’m an ordinary p

Whitewavemark wrote:

"There are no altruistic businesses with regard to their employees, unless the profits and salaries are shared. The owners will never be willing to do so as greed is the primary motivation."

If you think human nature is not biologically greedy then you are too optimistic .

Katie I won't pretend the establishment of capitalism has not benefitted me and mine. But I have never been forced to live on the streets.

GSM, it seems some family cultures, possibly yours, buck the trend.

Daisy Anne, you misunderstand GSM's ability to be objective .

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Caleo

Katie, I don't understand all the workings of social mobility, but it does seem that the Conservatives don't approve of it .

Unless people on benefits are properly educated, housed, fed, and employed, they and their children will lack realistic opportunity to be legislators. If your house is full of black mould you would be too busy keeping your kids alive to have energy to spare to be a politician.

There is no argument that everyone should be not living in decent accommodation, enough to eat and keep warm and that’s pretty basic, in theory the benefit system aims to do that.
There are always those that fall through the net, every government has had this problem and don’t get the help they need.

It’s nothing to do with the establishment, or the Monarchy or the aristocracy, that’s just excuses when/if Starmer gets elected there will be changes, don’t expect much because he still has to balance the economy.

You might, though, Caleo, provide your children with the impetus to get on in life. I came from a working class family, had a state education and studied in my own time, while working full time, to become a solicitor. I became a partner in a big City firm. One of my mother’s sayings was ‘there’s no such word as can’t’. And I vote Conservative. Don’t say the Conservatives don’t approve of social mobility.

Katie, I don't understand all the workings of social mobility, but it does seem that the Conservatives don't approve of it .

Unless people on benefits are properly educated, housed, fed, and employed, they and their children will lack realistic opportunity to be legislators. If your house is full of black mould you would be too busy keeping your kids alive to have energy to spare to be a politician.

Caleo

Nail on the head, GSM!

Yes, the political establishment ,the religious establishment, the monarchy ,and the aristocracy should include people on benefits.

Of course there are people in all walks of life who earn less than others or less than acceptable. What is your point?

Exactly so Katie - but an MPs salary would exclude them from all means tested benefits. All people of pensionable age who, or whose spouses, have paid sufficient NI contributions are, of course, on benefits - the SP.
Quite how the monarchy and aristocracy are going to include people on other benefits rather escapes me. Cloud cuckoo land.

Caleo

Nail on the head, GSM!

Yes, the political establishment ,the religious establishment, the monarchy ,and the aristocracy should include people on benefits.

There is no bar to those on low income going into politics, religion or any other profession, become a local councilor and change the system if enough others do you will.

Nail on the head, GSM!

Yes, the political establishment ,the religious establishment, the monarchy ,and the aristocracy should include people on benefits.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Caleo*, are you seriously suggesting that ‘the establishment’ should include people on benefits?

Surely the “establishment” is all of us, it’s a democracy we vote for representatives, those on benefits have the same say. It can never be more than a balance of who pays taxes and who receives benefits

Katie59

All the small business I know work much longer hours than employees, 60 hours is normal often more, Not only that they are risking their wealth and working capital, in many cases it is their house. At the end of the day they often earn less than their employees do and would be better off getting a “proper job”.

Agreed. And certainly true in my family.

Katie59

All the small business I know work much longer hours than employees, 60 hours is normal often more, Not only that they are risking their wealth and working capital, in many cases it is their house. At the end of the day they often earn less than their employees do and would be better off getting a “proper job”.

Yes 👍

All the small business I know work much longer hours than employees, 60 hours is normal often more, Not only that they are risking their wealth and working capital, in many cases it is their house. At the end of the day they often earn less than their employees do and would be better off getting a “proper job”.

Caleo, are you seriously suggesting that ‘the establishment’ should include people on benefits?

Whitewavemark2

There are no altruistic businesses with regard to their employees, unless the profits and salaries are shared. The owners will never be willing to do so as greed is the primary motivation.

Of course business owners must provide well for their employees, or they won't have any competent employees.

Greed isn't motive to owning a business, making a living is reason to working one's socks off keeping a business afloat.

CvD66, the reason is that the establishment is almost entirely composed of people who are not receiving benefits but many of whom are in a position to use tax havens, and invest their assets in establishment industries.

Outside investors buy shares in public companies - i.e. those offering shares to the public on the market. Many will have facilities with banks unless, of course, they are financial institutions. It’s smaller private companies that go for’bank loans’ and of course the potential lender will want to see the accounts and business plan - but that’s a different animal entirely. I’m sure you have seen instances of mass shareholder sell offs, devastating the value of a company and leading to facilities being terminated - the business fails and jobs are lost.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Maizie*, a company’s nominal value has everything to do with its ability to raise capital.

Capital from banks?

Surely they'd be looking at balance sheets and business plans?

Or is the nominal value of a business seen as its collateral?

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

There are no altruistic businesses with regard to their employees, unless the profits and salaries are shared. The owners will never be willing to do so as greed is the primary motivation.

I take exception to that statement Whitewavemark2

😄 it wasn’t personal.

I know many many SME owners, if they didn’t pay their employees well, if those employees did not have excellent working terms and conditions the companies profits would plummet.

If you interpret being financially secure and having a successful business as greed I respectfully suggest that you are out of touch with the SME’s in the 21st century.

Big multinationals are a different ballgame.