No, the most liberalism means is equality of opportunity. The great liberal political theorists like James Mill, JS Mill and Jeremy Bentham were quite keen on inequalities of wealth so long as these did not undermine a social contract (an early version of 'we’re all in this togther).
By that then how is it fair or equal people receive money when they don’t need to?
It’s equal by definition: if we all get something, and it’s the same, it’s equal.
Now if you’re rich you don’t absolutely have to claim it, and many don’t, or donate their benefit. But the principle of universalism, for the reasons, given earlier, is at the heart of this.
But you’re expecting too much of universal benefits. They do not in and of themselves create a more equal society. They are small parts of a larger system.
Donate their benefit? How?
I’m not expecting anything, I’m merely saying is it fair the state gives to those who don’t need it? And should something be done about it, could something be done about it?
The alternative is to have everything means-tested so that only the lumpen-poor receive it. And once only the lumpen-poor receive it you cut it as a scoungers’ handout.
As to your question of fairness, is it ‘fair’ that the British state hands out £93 billion to private business each and every year? (A figure that dwarfs the cost of the entire state school in this country).
The alternative is to devise a fair way for people to get these, why should the wealthy get something they can afford? It sounds wrong that a millionaire can get £300 fuel allowance whether they want it or not.
Link how they donate their benefits?
Link the £93 Billion to private businesses?
The alternative will result in what I’ve just described Barry. We’re starting to go round in circles.
In any case, a £300 fuel allowance or a free bus pass is dwarfed by the huge subsidies to business. We also allow benefits of inheritance tax-free for the wealthy without a murmur.
For the figures on state handouts to private ‘enterprise’ scroungers:
So the British state does not give £93 Billion then?
That one is out the way.
Now link how you donate your benefits?
Fish in a barrel this.
Hmm. I think you need to open that link and read it Barry. And I’m not sure what you expect by way of a link to my saying you can donate money to charity. If I get say £30 child benefit and decide to donate it, I can donate it. It ain’t rocket science.
Hmmm, I think you’’ find that the fuel allowance is automatically put into the recipients account or it used to be, there was no option to donate, donate to charity? You’re reaching there me lad.
I did read it, £93 Billion cost is not giving it, exaggeration.
I think you have a comprehension problem re the £93 billion, Barry.
Anyway, my feeling at this point is that all the arguments have been made. You can accept them or reject them, as you wish. I do find it a bit odd though that a supposedly staunch Labour supporter should be trying to pick any and every hole in the founding premises of the welfare state. It’s the kind of debate I’d expect to have with one of the swivel-eyed loons over in the other place.
Ho hum.
Fairness and equality are very separate things indeed, why should or should someone who does not need some money recieve it? That should be questioned as its our money, the recipient should also question it and some do as they can see its a poltical statement as opposed to an ideological one which it should be,
The irony some question some benefits and not others as it suits is very very hypocritical and convenient as I would like to know the cost of subsidizing wealthy pensioners.
You’ve got a complete toolbox here, Barry. If you’d only stop mangling the spanners you could work out the answers.
1 Like
It’s like watching Stephen Hawking try to teach mathematics to his cat.
1 Like
Barry - you might as well suggest that wealthy train travellers pay more for their fares. After all, the taxpayer subsidises train travel so wealthy travellers are receiving a non-meanstested benefit of sorts, just like every other train traveller.