BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[Pblakeney]

If "they" (who ever they are) collectively contribute less than they take out, are "they" net contributors, or even contributors?

This is not a criticism of the unwaged, or low earners, simply a case of saying like it is, IMHO.

It depends on how things are defined. If they are defined purely in monitory means then you are quite correct. However, society needs people to do the dirty work and that work is low paid. They might not be contributing to the economy but they are contributing to society.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If "they" (who ever they are) collectively contribute less than they take out, are "they" net contributors, or even contributors?

This is not a criticism of the unwaged, or low earners, simply a case of saying like it is, IMHO.

If you want to reduce everything to a figure on either side of a balance sheet then that is true.

To make it easier everyone should have an indicator set up by the state to tot up whether they are in debit or credit to the state as they move through life and the state should produce annual statistics sub-divided by age, race, disability, sex, marital status so that we can all judge their worth to the country and treat them accordingly. IMHO.

As an example someone, say a hard-working, well paid taxpayer aged 50, is probably a cumulative net taker until they are out of education and in their twenties, then a net contributer, until they suddenly have to give up work due to illness/disability and within a few years due to NHS medical treatment cost and state benefits they move back into being a net taker. It's all bollox and just another way to label people.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

As an example someone, say a hard-working, well paid taxpayer aged 50, is probably a cumulative net taker until they are out of education and in their twenties, then a net contributer, until they suddenly have to give up work due to illness/disability and within a few years due to NHS medical treatment cost and state benefits they move back into being a net taker. It's all bollox and just another way to label people.

I was just in the middle of making exactly the same point, you beat me to it!

 

[BoldonLad]

It depends on how things are defined. If they are defined purely in monitory means then you are quite correct. However, society needs people to do the dirty work and that work is low paid. They might not be contributing to the economy but they are contributing to society.

If you want to reduce everything to a figure on either side of a balance sheet then that is true.

To make it easier everyone should have an indicator set up by the state to tot up whether they are in debit or credit to the state as they move through life and the state should produce annual statistics sub-divided by age, race, disability, sex, marital status so that we can all judge their worth to the country and treat them accordingly. IMHO.

As an example someone, say a hard-working, well paid taxpayer aged 50, is probably a cumulative net taker until they are out of education and in their twenties, then a net contributer, until they suddenly have to give up work due to illness/disability and within a few years due to NHS medical treatment cost and state benefits they move back into being a net taker. It's all bollox and just another way to label people.

I would agree, it was a plea for definition.