Public attitudes to low earners worse than attitudes towards rich

[cd27]

Interesting results of survey from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published in the UK last week,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ople-want.html

In short, most peoples' idea of 'fairness' is very different to that of leftist politicians.

"An oddly under-publicised study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published last week, which bears the rather dry academic title "Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Economic Inequality" (rather than the more explanatory "The Left Has Completely Failed to Comprehend Public Opinion"), reveals the startling news. Most people, it transpires, do not object to disparities in earnings – even quite large ones. For the most part, they attribute higher earnings to "high-level ability, performance or social contribution". They assume, in other words, that most of those with very high earnings probably deserve them because of their exceptional talent or dedication.

Not so surprising, perhaps: after all, even Labour (in its Blairite incarnation) officially accepted the principle that people should be free to get rich if they had the ability to do so. But it is the corollary of this finding that fairly jumps off the page. In the report's own words, "Attitudes towards those on low incomes were often more negative than attitudes towards the 'rich'." Have you got that? The poor came in for more disapproval than the rich. And what were the reasons for these "negative attitudes", which fly in the face of everything that the Left-liberal opinion-forming class has been promulgating, with the unstinting support of the broadcast media, for a generation?

It was apparently widely believed that there were now adequate opportunities to earn a reasonable income (much of this survey was carried out before the worst effects of the recession had hit) and that benefit recipients, who got the biggest share of the "negative attitudes" reported, were not going to "contribute anything back to society" in return for what they were receiving. So what was seen as objectionable or unfair was not having more than other people, but getting something for nothing. The report sums it all up most succinctly: "Many participants did not find abstract arguments for greater equality persuasive. They preferred arguments for greater equality framed in terms of fairer rewards for effort and contribution.

Well, imagine that. After all these years of moral blackmail and brainwashing by the merchants of bourgeois guilt, most people still believe that poverty is not inevitably determined by a misfortune of birth or that social disadvantage is insurmountable. They actually persist in the view that human beings have free will: that individual character must come into play when we make judgments about a person's lot in life.
It is not, mind you, that they are heartless in the application of this test. When mitigating circumstances were presented to explain particular instances of poverty – the position of those who are carers for the disabled or the elderly, for example – respondents made appropriately humane exceptions. In the conditions of greater unemployment caused by the recession, they would almost certainly make more allowances."

[Cael]

Its not at all surprising when we have an educational system that trains people to hate themselves and fear "failure." Failure being defined as being one of the fvcked rather than one of the fvckers.

[geruptheyard!]

Well i hope some of the filthy lefties on this site take note !

It shoudl be pretty obvious all the same, how simple the opinion is. Prove your worth and you wont be discriminated against.

Do F all and claim your wasy to the grave and you'll be treated with disdain and anger! How is this hard to understand !?!

[cactusflower]

Well i hope some of the filthy lefties on this site take note !

It shoudl be pretty obvious all the same, how simple the opinion is. Prove your worth and you wont be discriminated against.

Do F all and claim your wasy to the grave and you'll be treated with disdain and anger! How is this hard to understand !?!

Try telling that to 400,000 people on the dole and desperate to work.

[Question R24U]

The poor should have worked harder when they were in school.




That said, it is a scandal that some teachers can work in private schools all their working life. If teachers are paid the same, naturally they will work where it is easier. If the State pays them, they should be forced to rotate schools. That and getting rid of the drunk or useless teachers would level the pitch as well. Ensuring every child gets 3 meals in a school would also help. Supplying all books and equipment to the students would even things out.

[geruptheyard!]

Try telling that to 400,000 people on the dole and desperate to work.

But thats the point "trying" im not talking about them at all! Im talking about the ones who are sitting on there bums doing nothing. Which i believe is what the finding of the report was.

no?

[Cael]

Well i hope some of the filthy lefties on this site take note !

It shoudl be pretty obvious all the same, how simple the opinion is. Prove your worth and you wont be discriminated against.

Do F all and claim your wasy to the grave and you'll be treated with disdain and anger! How is this hard to understand !?!

Prove your worth to who? Wealthy vermin?

[geruptheyard!]

That said, it is a scandal that some teachers can work in private schools all their working life. If teachers are paid the same, naturally they will work where it is easier. If the State pays them, they should be forced to rotate schools. That and getting rid of the drunk or useless teachers would level the pitch as well. Ensuring every child gets 3 meals in a school would also help. Supplying all books and equipment to the students would even things out.

Schooling is really the answer to alot of these things! Better trainning maybe!

I agree with your second point, my friends da was teacher he was mad redundant when a state school was being shut down. He was givin the lump 35 years teaching same school, decent package well above the stat min 2 weeks for every year.

The condition was that he never workd the state sector again, got himself a job in the private earning more than before!

Even confess himself that he is ********************e and it was a recession years ago that made him teach, nothing else.

He was very educated, very clever. No doubt after seeing he was going nowhere in a ******************** school he gave up! If anything the teachers would benefit heavily from a system similar to what you've spoken about.

[cactusflower]

But thats the point "trying" im not talking about them at all! Im talking about the ones who are sitting on there bums doing nothing. Which i believe is what the finding of the report was.

no?

Well, yes, there may have at the height of the boom have been an impression that anyone not working was a dosser. That would have been fostered by the Press. There's a tiny minority that don't want to work if they can avoid it, but unemployment went so low in Ireland when work was available that it was proven to be an insignificant minority. A lot of the small number not working if you took a close up would turn out to have a problem say addiction, disability, depression or a sick family member they were looking after. i've seen this myself close up.

[geruptheyard!]

Prove your worth to who? Wealthy vermin?

Society! there neighbours who look at them with the disdain the wealthy do.

Take 5 steps back and read what i am saying. Its not personal its about the bigger picture!