Keir Starmer's definition of working class

Good grief. As an only child with no friends, how did I survive?

I know we disagree on this (contributions, not necessarily economics - I don't comment on that), but I was answering the 'what would you do about it' question, and I do feel that it's wrong that the main tax is income tax, so those who don't work for an income don't pay it. Tax on spending by those who don't work is coming from someone else's earned income, so IMO it doesn't count.

I'd like to respond , Dd, but I might not have time today.

At the root of this I do think that economic beliefs and ideas about the purpose of life and how society should work are important but it's a vast and complex area to explore.

I do agree with much you proposed in your suggestions for 'what would you do about inequality?' and admire you for taking the time to consider the question and present thoughtful ideas.

Doodledog Follow the link, please, and read it - and possibly follow uo further articles on the subject.

They all say the same thing, Meritocacies are often more entrenched than class systems, because meritocrats give birth to meritocrats, and while though the opportunities may be available to all, home, culture and genetic reasons stop people taking the opportunties that are there.

As I said, and will continue to say, equality of opportunity is a necessary part of a free, open and equal society, but not sufficient in itself. Mstly what is needed is a socially legislated framework that guarantees everyone a basic standard of life and a democratic society that places everyone onthe same level in governing themsleves.

Doodledog

When you talk about those who choose not to work - do you mean, benefit claimants, or individuals who are supported by another family member, or the very wealthy who rely on inherited wealth?

I include benefit claimants because it's a popular belief that many / a lot / some have chosen to live on benefits as a lifestyle choice. How true this is, and the numbers involved, is something I have little idea about. Quite a few people seem to know lots of people doing this though. I thought it was actually quite difficult to claim benefits that allowed you to remove yourself from the labour market without a huge amount of supporting evidence that proved you should be. But I only know personally of a couple of people who are in receipt of benefits - but they are in fact working.

Back in the 80s I took a sabbatical from work for almost a year after my late OH took voluntary redundancy with a substantial redundancy package and decided to use it to set up his own business. I couldn't help him with the actual logistics of the work because it was an area in which I had no expertise, but I could do all the donkey work, admin, and ferrying around. Time was of the essence, so he asked me if I'd stop work (as a 'temp') and support his endeavour. Which I did, and he supported me financially. He 'kept' me.

So, we could afford for me to stay at home. I would not though have taken kindly to being compelled to do voluntary work during this period - the whole point of it was so that I could be available to help him which turned out in the event to be a time-consuming effort. I wasn't directly employed by him, so in effect, I wasn't working at a job. But he did establish a business which eventually employed other people (though not many, and only those with specific qualifications), and although he died a few years ago, the business is still running, though now scaled-down because of Covid, Brexit and the economic woes everyone's suffered.

Where would I have fitted into this system of voluntary work - is my question. Because, if I'd been obliged to do it - I would have carried on working instead as it would've defeated the object of not working. But, I wasn't working in the accepted sense, and neither was I employed, and if I'd needed to avail myself of the benefits and services of a working society, I would've done so.

I get your point - I'm just concerned about how it would work in practical terms.

Would you deprive a large puppy of adequate everyday and accessible facilities for play? No, you would not, as an experienced dog keeper, you know large puppies learn to socialise through play.

Young humans need space to play and have adventures even more so than puppies , as young humans are preparing for adult roles.

In terms of opportunity do we not all start from the same starting point - our first day at primary school

GSM surely you don’t really believe this!

Yes, I do. That is when we get into the education system. What we do with the opportunity our education gives is down to choice and ability.

I agree that it's not easy, as there's a thin line between compelling people to work and slavery . That's why I said that in the unlikely event that I led the next government I would look into it, as opposed to enforcing something straight away.

There are various possible ways it could work. I don't mean that benefit claimants should have to do 'Workfare', as that would lower wages, and I think that people who can't find work should be supported until they can, as should the sick or disabled and those caring for them. Obviously there has to be a retirement age beyond which nobody is expected to work and by 'work' I'm not suggesting chain gangs or physical labour.
I agree that people wanting to take time out should be able to do so, too. From the sound of things you were working during your 'sabbatical' anyway, Dickens, not that you are remotely answerable to me.

What I don't agree with is people having the right to opt out of making a contribution to society beyond their homes for years on end, whilst freely using all the things that a civil society provides. It's not about the money so much as the unfairness of the assumption that it's ok for others to do the work, pay the tax and basically provide the sort of society that lifts us all out of a subsistence lifestyle, while they don't contribute.

Every time a politician talks about how things will be paid for it comes down to increasing tax and NI (basically charging people to work) and cutting benefits and pensions (taking from those who have already paid into the system or who are looking for work). In many ways it doesn't matter whether income tax pays for spending or not - it is still only levied on those who work, and not on those who don't. The recent discussions about bringing pensioners into paying NI are a case in point. I don't disagree in principle with the idea that everyone should be treated equally when it comes to deductions from earnings, but I do disagree that it should only be earners who pay in. Someone with only a state pension (for which they've contributed for years) might get a job in B&Q to eke it out, which pushes their income into paying tax, then has to cough up more for NI, too, to pay for someone else who doesn't work and pays nothing. How is that fair?

VAT etc is a further tax if you have earned the money you're spending, but not if you haven't - you are just spending more of someone else's money to get whatever you're buying.

I know it's not a popular viewpoint, and it doesn't matter anyway, as it will never be put into place, but I think it's a fair way to think, particularly given the way we are encouraged to look down on benefit claimants - I find it particularly galling when people who don't work assume that it's ok so long as they don't need benefits, and don't look beyond that.

Sorry, that was in reply to Dickens. I lost track of time when writing the post

Mollygo

^Didn’t the Conservatives sell off a lot of school playing fields?^
I’m sure someone will come up with an answer, but some schools in my experience as a child, a parent, a teacher and a Governor, primary and secondary, were built with no room on the site for fields and the children either play on the playground or troop along to the local park.

I went to 3 different grammar schools - Dorchester, Ealing and Grays. The first and third had extensive grounds which have now gone whilst Ealing had just a playground and we went elsewhere for sports. this was back in the late 50s early 60s.

Between 1979 and 1997 the Tories sold off around 10,000 playing fields. Between 1997 and 2010 Labour sold off 226.

I suppose some of you would no doubt suggest that Labour would have sold more, had they not already disappeared.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t see that happening here. You are probably talking about societies which have been thus for very many years, so that nobody knows anything different.

Society was much more equal when I was a child, back in teh 50s

I don’t have a problem with a woman staying at home if her husband is earning good money (or vice versa, mustn’t be sexist). I didn’t have that choice. I have worked with many men who simply couldn’t have put in the hours they did if they hadn’t had a wife at home running the place, doing the shopping, looking after the children, making sure everyone had clean clothes.

I don't want to drag the thread off topic for too long, but I think if a couple wants one of them to stay at home, the other should pay two lots of tax. As it stands, one person pays for him or herself, and the other pays nothing. To even things out, they should pay double. They will still, as a couple, be better off than a working couple who pay twice and also pay childcare and commuting charges.

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

Having a highly paid partner or inherited money doesn’t exempt anybody from the obligation to work in my opinion. The quality of parenting is much more important than the quantity of it, and this country is now geared up for all working age adults to work - and most, including those with young children do want to work. Working is good for self esteem, and it’s good for children to have fulfilled parents.
I don’t see how, when people complain about the number of immigrants, they also see it as acceptable for people who can work not to be working and contributing to society.

Sorry, if a couple can afford for one of them to stay home and look after their children rather than put them into a nursery in my opinion that’s best for the children.

Once they get to three children are usually ready for nursery/pre-school, then the stay at home parent can begin to return to work if they so wish.

Taxing the working parent twice because their co-parent is staying at home doing what is a very important job is just ridiculous.

On another thread it is being repeatedly posted how important early years and parent - child relationships are for the development both emotionally and educationally for children…

Er I wouldnt work if I won the lottery. Of course it would be acceptable to do that.
In terms of those with young children I am in a quite large team, I would say all those with young children work part time. I work in nurseries and early years settings, I would say whilst they have some advantages, they arent ideal places for very young children and the quality of provision is often not good.

Agreed. Can’t have it both ways.

Early years development doesn’t require 24/7 on site parenting though GrannyGravy. What matters is that the child receives plenty of attention and stimulation, and whilst a strong parental bond is vital, it’s not only parents who can provide that. I just don’t see why having money should exempt people, but it’s acceptable for those with less income to be obliged to work when they have children the same age.

Surely the answer then is to provide adequate support for parents to stay at hom in early years then, not ensure that those who earn less money are also disadvantaged by being placed in nurseries which frequently aren't ideal.

Most parents now have a year off due to maternity/paternity leave, for each child. Improving the quality of nursery provision is very important. This isn’t the 1960s though, most women do want to work anyway, part time when their children are very young.

Blimey Casdon are you advocating for a North Korea style UK?

If people can afford not to work, good for them. They will still be paying tax in a multitude of ways.

I have always worked and juggled childcare, none of our five children went to Nursery before the age of three. We were fortunate to have a Nanny, (no relatives in this country)

Casdon

Having a highly paid partner or inherited money doesn’t exempt anybody from the obligation to work in my opinion. The quality of parenting is much more important than the quantity of it, and this country is now geared up for all working age adults to work - and most, including those with young children do want to work. Working is good for self esteem, and it’s good for children to have fulfilled parents.
I don’t see how, when people complain about the number of immigrants, they also see it as acceptable for people who can work not to be working and contributing to society.

Exactly my view.

I see it as acceptable for a woman to stay at home with her children if her husband is earning a good salary and they don’t have to resort to benefits. The husband is providing for the whole family without recourse to the state - and it’s singularly unlikely that a man paying at least higher rate, or more likely additional rate, income tax will be able to do that. This is in stark contrast to illegal immigrants who simply take from the state, contributing nothing.

I will add that 'working' needn't necessarily be about going out to work, and there is no reason why mothers shouldn't have a year or so off after having a baby. I'm not a slave driver .

I'm talking about people who assume that it's ok to do nothing for society at large for years, but are happy to benefit from education, health, roads, defence, law and order etc etc without paying towards them.

I don't care how much tax a partner pays. We work on a pro-rata tax system, so he or she is simply paying his or her dues. There is not, AFAIK any mechanism by which someone can pay for a partner not to work - the system doesn't work like that.