Another truth bomb

[Dodbroon]

I've been reading this expanding debate for some time without wanting to get involved greatly in political discussion. This is mostly because I am so disillusioned with politics and politicians. To be honest I've really no idea who deserves my vote and I am more anti than pro anything i.e. anti independence and therefore anti SNP who imo are the worst of an overall bad bunch. What bothers me in political debate is the vitriol poured out by the left when discussing the Tories as if they are the only problem. The left are imo more extreme than the right in politics and don't have any right to claim the moral high ground. Also a lot of the class war discussed can be interpreted in a number of ways. E.g. what is the definition of privileged, a word bandied about on this thread. Again imo a lot of the discussions and claims about privileged is about envy and ideological class warfare rather than looking behind the word. So what is a privileged person, someone living off inherited wealth, a businessman 'exploiting' his workforce or as I believe many think, someone who simply has a good job earning good money. If someone works hard, trains and or goes into a University education and gets a good job earning more than the average is he or she privileged or just a deserving hard working soul? At the other end of the scale those earning little or on benefits are they under privileged? Not all out of work have to be. Many cannot find work, many cannot be bothered trying, preferring to live on benefits, benefits that many would regard as a privilege not a right. It is not clear cut.

Finally with regard to immigration what is wrong with having a view that limited, legal immigration is of benefit to the country and perfectly acceptable but uncontrolled influx of economic migrants as well as pseudo refugees as opposed to genuine refugees is unacceptable and dangerous? The worst of it all is that the foregoing view is never countered by reasoned arguments but shouted down by claims of racism. Like most of politics and political debate they whole sh1tshow sickens me.

[Deeranged]

A priveleged person is one who has special rights, advantages or immunities i.e. mostly those with inherited or otherwise substantial wealth.

Does the common working man (women and others included for clarity) have any special rights, advantages or immunities? No, so they have no privelege.

Do the inherently wealthy or those with substantial wealth have privelege? Too right they do, ask Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, King Chick - Donald (immune from prosecution) Trump. They'll try to deny it by giving some round the houses political bullcrap answer but 100% they do have privelege. They can go to the best schools, best universities, eat the best food (always), travel the world, they never worry about where the next meal's coming from and the list goes on. I'd think most of us on here are 'normal' working class individuals who at some stage in their lives have wanted for something? Those with privelege, real privelege, want for nothing.

I tried to reconcile privelege with earnings and found that the average earnings in the UK, according to Forbes, in June 2024 was £35,724 PA. Average peaks for the 40 - 49 age group at £40,040 PA. That's not enough, in fact not nearly enough, to be able to be considered priveleged. A two worker household, both taking in that level of earnings, is approaching the comfortable level - no more than that (IMO). Take off tax, NI and consider a reasonable mortgage payment (eg £1,000 PM) and there really isn't enough left to make anyone wealthy.

Privelege is therefore in the land of the inherently rich and those with substantial wealth, not in the land of the working person who, on average will never see any level of privelege in their lifetime.

Best I can say for myself regarding privelege? I've been married for 40 years this year (to the same woman), I have two kids and four grandkids and I support Dundee FC rather than them across the road or either of the cheeks, I can choose whether to do something or not do it, go somewhere or not go there (except for work I need to go there), and that's the honest working man's extent of privelege.

All working people are therefore under priveleged because we'll never have the privelege restricted to those who covet their wealth.

[noahrab]

You can show me where I've written that of course?

Millionaires kids benefit from ‘free’ uni education.

Not only ‘free’ at the point of use but ‘free’.

[BCram]

All of those tertiary education still options exist today.

For me the attainment gap is not about the levels or options of education available but the social security system which is rewarding people to do nothing at all and low wages in the workplace which disincentivise some from working at all.

The country is also being robbed blind by all kinds of chancers both foreign and domestic and doesn't raise income well from the behemoth companies that can afford to play the system with clever financial people in their team.

We could start by really closing our borders to illegal immigration and making immigration for those who will contribute well easier.

The problem with that idea is . loony left won't allow the former and the really right won't allow the latter.

Meanwhile Romanians will continue to send our social security cash back to thier homeland as a free gift.

The attainment gap is the different outcomes depending on where your family lives. Somehow, some support for poor people is motivating them to try to stay being poor. I think you have described this in your post and it is difficult to dispute the effect. Why would you take on more hours of minimum wage work if you lost at least the same amount of money in benefits? I think education in all its forms is the key.

[BCram]

A priveleged person is one who has special rights, advantages or immunities i.e. mostly those with inherited or otherwise substantial wealth.

Does the common working man (women and others included for clarity) have any special rights, advantages or immunities? No, so they have no privelege.

Do the inherently wealthy or those with substantial wealth have privelege? Too right they do, ask Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, King Chick - Donald (immune from prosecution) Trump. They'll try to deny it by giving some round the houses political bullcrap answer but 100% they do have privelege. They can go to the best schools, best universities, eat the best food (always), travel the world, they never worry about where the next meal's coming from and the list goes on. I'd think most of us on here are 'normal' working class individuals who at some stage in their lives have wanted for something? Those with privelege, real privelege, want for nothing.

I tried to reconcile privelege with earnings and found that the average earnings in the UK, according to Forbes, in June 2024 was £35,724 PA. Average peaks for the 40 - 49 age group at £40,040 PA. That's not enough, in fact not nearly enough, to be able to be considered priveleged. A two worker household, both taking in that level of earnings, is approaching the comfortable level - no more than that (IMO). Take off tax, NI and consider a reasonable mortgage payment (eg £1,000 PM) and there really isn't enough left to make anyone wealthy.

Privelege is therefore in the land of the inherently rich and those with substantial wealth, not in the land of the working person who, on average will never see any level of privelege in their lifetime.

Best I can say for myself regarding privelege? I've been married for 40 years this year (to the same woman), I have two kids and four grandkids and I support Dundee FC rather than them across the road or either of the cheeks, I can choose whether to do something or not do it, go somewhere or not go there (except for work I need to go there), and that's the honest working man's extent of privelege.

All working people are therefore under priveleged because we'll never have the privelege restricted to those who covet their wealth.

Being rich brings benefits because you can buy your way through life. I don't think that's a crime.

[Deeranged]

Millionaires kids benefit from ‘free’ uni education.

Not only ‘free’ at the point of use but ‘free’.

But that's not a benefit as such, it's an entitlement to the age of 18 then after that, in Scotland at least, it's also an entitlement

[BCram]

I've been reading this expanding debate for some time without wanting to get involved greatly in political discussion. This is mostly because I am so disillusioned with politics and politicians. To be honest I've really no idea who deserves my vote and I am more anti than pro anything i.e. anti independence and therefore anti SNP who imo are the worst of an overall bad bunch. What bothers me in political debate is the vitriol poured out by the left when discussing the Tories as if they are the only problem. The left are imo more extreme than the right in politics and don't have any right to claim the moral high ground. Also a lot of the class war discussed can be interpreted in a number of ways. E.g. what is the definition of privileged, a word bandied about on this thread. Again imo a lot of the discussions and claims about privileged is about envy and ideological class warfare rather than looking behind the word. So what is a privileged person, someone living off inherited wealth, a businessman 'exploiting' his workforce or as I believe many think, someone who simply has a good job earning good money. If someone works hard, trains and or goes into a University education and gets a good job earning more than the average is he or she privileged or just a deserving hard working soul? At the other end of the scale those earning little or on benefits are they under privileged? Not all out of work have to be. Many cannot find work, many cannot be bothered trying, preferring to live on benefits, benefits that many would regard as a privilege not a right. It is not clear cut.

Finally with regard to immigration what is wrong with having a view that limited, legal immigration is of benefit to the country and perfectly acceptable but uncontrolled influx of economic migrants as well as pseudo refugees as opposed to genuine refugees is unacceptable and dangerous? The worst of it all is that the foregoing view is never countered by reasoned arguments but shouted down by claims of racism. Like most of politics and political debate they whole sh1tshow sickens me.

But if you don't say what you think about these topics your views may not be represented. It's like a bubble, the more air/ideas are put out on a topic the more people are engaged. It's ideas, just that. Personal abuse doesn't add anything to the discussions other than it can be the way some people express their very deeply rooted convictions.

As regards legal immigration, I think immigration can create a danger to all first nation people. In our case, it is more motivated newcomers who accept jobs that our youngsters do not want. Living in poverty on benefits is a trap. Making the benefits bigger and better seems to me to be a way of making the situation worse.

By not having immigrants we might actually get a situation where employers need to compete for workers by offering higher wage rates, better conditions etc. That's the paradox, no more immigrants might mean higher wages and ultimately fewer jobs. With AI coming along that might be a sensible plan.

[islaydarkblue]

Millionaires kids benefit from ‘free’ uni education.

Not only ‘free’ at the point of use but ‘free’.

Millionaires also pay taxes which pay for free Uni education in Scotland thanks to the Barnett Formula.

[islaydarkblue]

But if you don't say what you think about these topics your views may not be represented. It's like a bubble, the more air/ideas are put out on a topic the more people are engaged. It's ideas, just that. Personal abuse doesn't add anything to the discussions other than it can be the way some people express their very deeply rooted convictions.

As regards legal immigration, I think immigration can create a danger to all first nation people. In our case, it is more motivated newcomers who accept jobs that our youngsters do not want. Living in poverty on benefits is a trap. Making the benefits bigger and better seems to me to be a way of making the situation worse.

By not having immigrants we might actually get a situation where employers need to compete for workers by offering higher wage rates, better conditions etc. That's the paradox, no more immigrants might mean higher wages and ultimately fewer jobs. With AI coming along that might be a sensible plan.

You are correct that no more immigrants might mean higher wages and ultimately fewer jobs.
The SNP politicians keep banging on about wanting to increase the welfare payments but they fail to admit that they have been given extra welfare powers which they will not use because it costs the Scottish Government too much money.
Michael Russell the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Health and Life Long Learning admitted this when he was a panelist on a BBC Question Time programme about six years ago.

[BCram]

You are correct that no more immigrants might mean higher wages and ultimately fewer jobs.
The SNP politicians keep banging on about wanting to increase the welfare payments but they fail to admit that they have been given extra welfare powers which they will not use because it costs the Scottish Government too much money.
Michael Russell the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Health and Life Long Learning admitted this when he was a panelist on a BBC Question Time programme about six years ago.

Islay, I think the trouble with where we are today, in Scotland, is really because devolution was intended to stop demands for independence in its tracks. It is such a flawed model that I don't think Labour will be able to make it work even if Starmerism is in power in Westminster.