Thanks for getting yourself to the golden bit
Er....so ones ability is the determinant of the oh holy haves and have nots? Or at least you think it should be...? Fair enough. I wouldn't say that the amount of income you receive is guaranteed to be proportionate to the amount of ability you have, or maybe I'm just struggling to understand what you are saying.
Obviously people work for profit.....and this happens and works in the UK economy IMO. I can't really use your example, because the UK isn't communist Soviet Russia.
Education is free up to a certain point. The government funds your education so that it can in the future benefit from you. People don't get charged $2 for a drink and then $4 for a drink because people are taxed regressively on those kinds of goods, as in you get charged 15% VAT.
A lot of things are subjective...but whilst we are living in the UK society and not managing to survive of disease ridden water whilst having HIV in Africa need is the ability to live above the poverty line. Need feeds you because the government pays for you when you are that bad off. I'm not saying I agree with that, but then again if you correctly fund people it comes with positives to society. We could just let every poor person die if we wanted to, but the point of funding them is in the hope that they will get off their arse and work, which unfortunately is the hard thing to do without failure. Whilst they need it, the country needs them too, if they didn't then why else would they bother to help them out? Obviously because of humans rights baloney but that applies more for disabled people who can't and never will do anything for society but feed off of it. People who currently do but could potentially help society will be encouraged through subsidies to do so. Obviously if you pay too much then they may be happy to just feed off of that money, but it's hard to achieve the right balance, despite what I/u/we/anyone believes.
I understand why lawyers get paid a lot whilst ditch diggers don't
In a case such as a lawyer there are state lawyers (although I'd assume there are state lawyers in America too?) but if you want a better lawyer then you have to pay more. That is how many aspects of a free market work, and that is how some things are. The UK does have private hospitals too provide a quality more suited to those who are paying out of their pocket dearly. Dentistry is increasing more like that too, but I don't get your point about people willing to pay more should be more entitled. Obviously in something like Ebay that happens and works, but there isn't that big a shortage of lawyers or doctors that we need to go to measures such as "whoever pays the highest gets the treatment". That can happen if you so choose, and you will get better quality but I don't think that should be the sole form of medical care, or legal help.
Firstly.....IMO the Queen is just a tourist attraction and is still there because of tradition. She has no power, and despite what she actually does which may seem important as a Queen she has no power over the matter, she is just a dog on a leash.
Who is to say that a "poor" man is any of the things you have listed? Poor is relative, especially when referring to the opinion of people who are earning over £100k a year. If you don't tax rich people more, then poverty will increase at the extreme points, and the richer will become richer. This will just lead back to olden times......and then it won't even matter if you're a lawyer or not you could still be rich, and even if you have the academical potential to be rich you will not be given the opportunity to do so because rich people will not allow you to get in.
The thing is, my "must" is your "should". I don't control what the government does, and what is the point in highlighting that I say "should" and then go and say "no you shouldn't" when it already happens? What word should I be using instead of should? I integrate my opinion with what actually happens, because in a lot of cases I don't think what the government is doing is wrong.
Anyway, obviously I can decline beggars and charitable causes, but you can't really on philanthropy especially in this modern day. If something has to happen and it needs money, and there is no "if no one volunteers then it won't happen" because the consequences of no action are far worse then taxing the rich more then so be it. Money doesn't grow on trees, if things in society need money to function then who else will pay them if not the taxpayers?
Beggars can still be on benefits if they want so begging is just a non formal way of making more money.
