AIBU that socialists should just implement their ideas outside of government?

[pinksauce]

Just that really – there are millions of people who voted Labour; but also millions who didn’t and don’t want anything to do with their policies. Why do socialists desire to impose their views?

Instead, why don’t all the millions who vote Labour get together and create a pooling of resources independent of the state? Each person who lines up with this philosophy could pay a high percentage of their wealth into a central fund and build hospitals, schools and subsidise higher wages without being in government..

Nothing is stopping people pooling their resources and paying for each other, offering enhanced benefits to their members, taking on debts for each other, transferring income as deemed appropriate – but they don’t seem to do it voluntarily, despite indicating they want to live in such a society. If it worked well, it may even attract more people.

Or, do people who believe in socialist ideals only want to do it if they can impose their will on those who don’t wish to be part of such a scheme?

To clarify, I think lots of relatively well off labour voters are keen to tax “the rich” as long as it doesn’t involve them paying any more.

I think there are whole hosts of Tory voters who are happy to benefit from tax cuts as long as the cuts on public services don't land on them.

Oh and lots who are happy to take all the credit for their success but ignore the fact that they are massively facilitated by society.

Tbh I think there is a point here that if we want better public services, very many of us are going to have to contribute more. We can’t just think the unidentifiable “rich” are going to pay. We need to make the decision on whether we want better public services that we ourselves are prepared to pay for (when we can afford to buy that’s likely to come quite far down the income scale).

@malylis - totally agree. Think it’s the same sort of thing- people want things they don’t personally pay for. The Tory and labour voters just think about it differently.

I think the idea that someone else pays in nebulous, its very Daily Mail. We all benefit from a society that has better investment in infrastructure, healthcare and education.

The tax increases on the highest paid were not large, the average tax rate only increased ever so slightly.

there are millions of people who voted Labour; but also millions who didn’t and don’t want anything to do with their policies. Why do socialists desire to impose their views?

There are millions of people who didn't vote tory and yet they still get to impose their views on the country.

I'm assuming in your world you would be withdrawing schools, hospitals, roads, police, fire brigade and all social care from those who don't want to contribute? Also when you are mugged or a family member murdered we don't lock up the person who did it using state resources?

I dont mind paying for infrastructure, schools and hospitals etc. Why would i?

Also the other side to your second point is that many others dismiss the role of hard work that contributes to the success of many rich people. It’s easier to justify taxing people if wealth is simply an accident of birth. The reality is quite different though- there are lots of different aspects that contribute to whether someone will be rich. Hard work, luck, talent and background.

@malylis - I agree that there are overall benefits to having an educated society, etc but there is a level of tax which would make it not worth it for pretty much everyone.

I think the reason you would object to paying very high taxes is that it would impact on your lifestyle and you would feel that you were not getting an appropriate benefit.

That’s not to say that I personally feel that way at the present time but I understand the point.

@malylis also it’s not nebulous that someone else pays. Some people do pay much much more than others and many don’t contribute at all while taking a lot out. That’s reality.

I don't think anyone dismisses the role of hard work (that's your strawman). In this country the biggest determinant of your success (since the late 70s) has been the income of your parents. Go look at the Sutton Trust data on who holds the top jobs and their backgrounds.

There are lots of things that contribute to success, hard work plays a far lower role than those who have succeeded make it out to. Hence as I said before most are guilty of self attribution bias.

Its nebulous because you only look at direct taxation not indirect, and you only consider direct benefits.

Why wouldn't you want to look after the 'poor'? Without them in good health and adequately educated your life would be disastrous. No clean house, no one to serve you in a shop or restaurant, no one to do your hair, nails etc, no one to look after your children. Try to have a benevolent mind set, even if only for your own selfish benefit.

Because the poor are only poor because they made bad life choices and are lazy don't ya know?

Because the poor are only poor because they made bad life choices and are lazy don't ya know?

I grew up in poverty but now have a very nice, comfortable life 👍🏻 being born into poverty doesn’t condemn you to remain there it just makes you work harder to escape it.

A lot of the people I grew up with did make terrible life choices and were lazy 👍🏻 You can blame the fact they were born into poverty but unless you’re championing communism then you can’t expect every child born to receive the exact same opportunities in life. There is an element of luck. Those who are born into middle class families are lucky and yes have a higher chance of success. Those born low income houses are lucky they weren’t born into poverty in a third world country 👍🏻

Life isn’t equal, it’s not fair, you get what you get and it’s up to you to change it if you’re not happy 👍🏻

You have a good bout of survivor bias there I see.

Not championing communism at all, although we can do things to improve equality of opportunity.

Lots of middle class and wealthy people I know have made terrible life decisions and the rest of their lives have not been impacted as it would if they were from a less privileged background

Good example, how many trainee reporters at the times who got sacked for lying (in print and to their boss) got their next job at the telegraph?

Those born into poverty face far higher challenges in order to get out of it. All the data on social mobility backs me up

But its also good to see that you stick to the old and easily disprovable tropes.

People nake bad choices for lots of reasons ...mental health issues, boredom, lack of opportunity, peer influence, ptsd, bad upbringing, being young and innocent. I bet these issues are more prevalent in the poor although many rich young and innocent people mess up too.

Taxes currently go to a lot of stuff

Roads- maintenance
Street lighting
Public transport
Bin collections etc
Welfare state
Armed forces
Pensions
NHS
Schools
Running everything ie beurocracy
+++

Do you have a list of which bits you want to be communally funded ie via tax and which bits you want not to pay into?

I believe your list would be very interesting.

Is this lazy arsed poorly thought out thread still going?

I note the OP disappeared once she went to bed and had presumably sobered up. .or not.

Loads of rich and middle class people mess up.

Its just not as life defining for them because they have privilege which allows them second chances or third or fourth. Class A drug use is far more prevalent in the white middle class youth than it is in poor areas for example.

Isn't this what charity/philanthropy is? I worked in management for a charity who used charitable donations and charity shops to generate money for healthcare related activity taking the burden off the nhs for treatment of some long term conditions.
They pissed a lot of money up the wall along the way, but that's a different matter entirely.

@malyis

Undermining people’s personal experience on the topic because it doesn’t match your own opinion doesn’t make you right or morally superior.

We want a society with total equality. Where regardless of birth we have access to the exact same resources and opportunities - Communism

We want a society where everyone has access to basic resources and opportunities but accept some will still be very privileged - Socialism

Be clear on which one you’re arguing for^
Socialism doesn’t think the rich shouldn’t be rich or privileged it just means nobody should be starving in the street either!

Not at all undermining someone's experience, it is a classic example of survivor bias though, so utterly flawed.

You are now falling into a straw man area and creating arguments for me. I never argued for communism and even then your definitions of both are incorrect, again to suit your argument

As I said the data on social mobility backs me up entirely.

Lets

Presumably there would be enough to find everything they want if it were voluntary. For those saying they only do as much as they can are you genuinely doing as much as you can. If you aren’t working all the hours god gives you and then risking saving in an attempt to make more money and working to improve you cv at the same time then you’re not doing all you can, you are doing all you are willing to do. This is fair enough but why do you think the people who do the above to earn more are obliged to fund your ideals? If you believe in something then make it work yourself instead of trying to force people who don’t agree with you into doing it.