# Robin Hood attitude



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Discussion in the UBI (universal basic income) thread seems to be heading off on an important discussion tangent (which could soon become a hot button topic), so I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss the merits of "steal from the rich to give to the poor" which is often thought of as a good idea by those on the lower end of the financial scale.

Personally, having been on both ends of the scale, I don't believe it can work, especially since I can do math and actually follow things like the finances of government, but many want to believe that this system will be the saviour of mankind so, let the games begin and may the odds be ever in your favour...


----------



## canew90 (Jul 13, 2016)

There is nothing wrong with the concept that those who make more, pay "slightly" more, provided the money is used as intended. To help those who for what ever reason, really are not able or in a position to reasonably take care of themselves, or to contribute more towards government costs. I'm not talking about young, healthy, single parents, even the elderly who don't want to find work because its easier or just as viable to max out EI, live off welfare, take advantage of their parents, or are just too lazy to look for work because they'll only earn minimum wage.
When people get something for nothing they rarely appreciate it. Look at healthcare, the cost are going through the ceiling because everyone believes it free and doesn't cost them anything.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Just a Guy said:


> Personally, having been on both ends of the scale, I don't believe it can work, especially since I can do math


Ditto 



> let the games begin


They already did: http://globalnews.ca/news/3399143/ontario-basic-income-pilot-project/ (didn't read the whole UBI thread yet so don't know if it was posted there )


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If highly unequal societies are more successful, that should be born out in the data. Do you think that's the case, JAG?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

My sister-in-law was a HUGE union supporter for years. She has health issues and often took advantage of union protection. Felt it was her right to live life her way.

Several decades later, she got promoted into management and saw the other side of the coin. She couldn't stand it, seeing how ridiculous things were while trying to run a company. She stayed in management for several years, then got herself demoted back into a union position...the perks were just so much better and less hassles. She now hates unions, but loves the benefits they provide, she knows she's milking the system, but it's the best option for the least amount of work. At one point she was off for over a year on long term disability and, upon return to work had to take six weeks off for accumulated vacation over the time she didn't work. All paid time...society covered the bill.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

andrewf said:


> If highly unequal societies are more successful, that should be born out in the data. Do you think that's the case, JAG?


Didn't say they were more successful, I said there's nothing holding you, or anyone else back from being successful...other than themselves. I don't think an unequal society, by design is good...in he USSR, it was hard to get ahead, unless you were big in the party. That was a truly unequal society. All animals are created equal, some animals more so as the saying went.

Canada isn't like that. You could go out and become rich, be one of the unequal people...the choice is yours, not society's. It's not like you were born the queen here.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

So you're saying high inequality is fine, as long as there is social mobility? What would you say about the US having steadily declining social mobility, in lock-step with rising inequality?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> So you're saying high inequality is fine, as long as there is social mobility? What would you say about the US having steadily declining social mobility, in lock-step with rising inequality?


Where capitalist societies sometimes go off the rails is social acceptance of predatory practices of taking advantage of others, i.e. the USA. Trump is a classic case of 'success' based on predatory principles. Think Trump University, and isolating his RE projects in corporate entities so that he got rich off fees but when the project went bust, the investors AND contractors sub-contractors were left unpaid. And yet, the average low/middle class Trump supporter still admire his 'business successes' on the backs of other people (OPM to speak). An example of a society where win/lose is the operative theme.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Again, you're comparing a different country. We aren't in America, nothing is impeding you from changing your lifestyle here. I'm not saying we should emulate the states, im saying I believe that anyone here has a chance to change their life, but many choose not to. 

Instead they look for excuses, compare their lot to others and complain, or try to twist the idea into arguements like "so what you condone is inequality". 

Let me be clear, that's not what I'm saying. I believe that, if you don't like the way your life is going, do something to change it. You live in a country where that's still possible.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People still have to live while they "change their lives".

Certainly government could be more helpful in providing short term financial aid, because the support just isn't there currently.

As Kevin O'Leary has said........if you want to start a business these days you won't get any support from government or lenders.

You have to find the money from the three Fs........... friends, family or fools.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Trust me, there are ways to survive while changing your life without a government handout or family support, even if you're disabled. And, as I said, there's real motivation to get it right and do it quickly. It does require hard choices though, something most people want to avoid.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Some of my friends in their 50s lost their jobs during the downturn. A few found replacement work at a fraction of their prior salary. Some found part time work. The unlucky ones have been unable to find anything, despite their best efforts. They're often told that they are overqualified.

How easy is it for them to change their circumstances JAG?


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

And how would your lucky friends feel if they had to pay more taxes to support the unlucky ones? 

My mother-in-law came to Canada at 56. We sponsored them, so she didn't have to work - but she didn't want to be "a burden" as she called it. A very qualified doctor back home, she realized pretty quickly that she couldn't pass the exams here to confirm her degree. So she started giving private massages at first, then became a caregiver for the elderly. Learned English, made a lot of friends, earned enough to buy a car for the father-in-law who started driving her around (was taking public transit for a few years before then) Hates the "overqualified" excuse with a passion


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I'm lucky. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes if it means providing a better social safety net. 

One of my unlucky friends came to Canada roughly twelve years ago. He was not sponsored and did not receive a penny of government assistance. He and his wife worked as cleaners while attending ESL. When his English was good enough he sold electronics on commission and then cars on commission. After a few years he found a professional job in his field. His wife continued to work as a house cleaner. He bought a car, a house, paid taxes and raised two children who are now employed taxpayers.

In his late 50s now, his multinational company outsourced his department abroad and let the entire office go. After a year of applying for jobs, his health failed and he spent months in and out of the hospital. 

Moneytoo, your mother worked her butt off and made a good life I'm Canada. My friend did too. Then he ran into a string of bad luck. His wife does not earn a lot and their savings are running out. 

What if his luck doesn't change?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Olivaw, your friends didn't try to change their circumstances, they tried to recreate the same thing that they had already lost. Change means trying something new. If you'd actually read my posts, you'd have read the part where I turned to investing upon not being able to work anymore, I found a new source of passive income to replace my active income.

Since I did this when I was disabled, I'd say your able bodied friends (half of them at least), with probably a lot more assets (I has very few assets since I was building a business) than I had at the time, have a much better chance of success than I had.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

JAG is saying that anyone can overcome difficulties and make an economic success of their life. To support this idea he offers the anecdotal example of his own life . He overcame difficulties,therefore everybody can. If they don't ,then it is a moral failing in that person. They have a personality defect. Therefore for the government to support them or give them money is morally wrong. They're lazy,they're not trying hard enough. Paying taxes to the government to support these morally weak people is unnecessary. It only encourages dependency.

This is not an original idea. It's been around for centuries.It's seems rather myopic to adopt such a position when apparently we are on the cusp of robotization
which promises to render millions of people obsolete. There may be more need for the social safety net,not less.

All the free riders aren't in the unions. A lot of them are in the executive suites.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Actually, I'm saying most people don't even try something different. They keep trying to do the same thing over and over. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail attitude instead of grabbing a different tool and trying it.

As I said before, I'm not against a social safety net, I would have loved to have one but, if there isn't one there and you're thrown in the deep end of the pool, you either learn to swim pretty quick (which most people would) or you drown. You may not have perfect form, but most people can stay above water.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

View attachment 14882


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

*wheel group*



olivaw said:


> I'm lucky. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes if it means providing a better social safety net.


My friend and I used to amuse ourselves by musing how much we'd give to whom (family & friends) if we won gazillion dollars  I think the game is fitting for the Robin Hood thread. 

Say you have 10 friends in hard times, all used to be 100K-ers:

- 2 keep earning 100K
- 2 had to change jobs and are now making 50K each
- 2 could only find part-time jobs and are down to 25K
- 4 couldn't find anything and are unlucky 0

You have a million to spare from your super-lucky win, just to help your friends (there's more to help others, and your wife is taking care of them - to make your task easier ) - how would you do it?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Actually, I'm saying most people don't even try something different. They keep trying to do the same thing over and over. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail attitude instead of grabbing a different tool and trying it.
> 
> As I said before, I'm not against a social safety net, I would have loved to have one but, if there isn't one there and you're thrown in the deep end of the pool, you either learn to swim pretty quick (which most people would) or you drown. You may not have perfect form, but most people can stay above water.


And who cares about the drowned, anyway?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

In the last thread, and this one, has anyone suggested the government use the money to hire people to do useful work, like build new roads, schools,hospitals, housing, or provide some valuable service? Wouldn't this be a better use for the money than just giving it away? If I recall rightly the original question was what was to be done about all the people put out of work by automation and outsourcing and sending our jobs to foreign countries. Can you think of any product or service we could use more of?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

andrewf said:


> And who cares about the drowned, anyway?


Right now the majority are trying to drown the few who tried to swim...better everyone dies I guess, that way we're all equal.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Moneytoo said:


> My friend and I used to amuse ourselves by musing how much we'd give to whom (family & friends) if we won gazillion dollars  I think the game is fitting for the Robin Hood thread.
> 
> Say you have 10 friends in hard times, all used to be 100K-ers:
> 
> ...


Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, 
Teach a man to fish and he feeds his family for a lifetime.

Unless he has to give all he fish he caught to others who don't want to fish.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> In the last thread, and this one, has anyone suggested the government use the money to hire people to do useful work, like build new roads, schools,hospitals, housing, or provide some valuable service? Wouldn't this be a better use for the money than just giving it away? If I recall rightly the original question was what was to be done about all the people put out of work by automation and outsourcing and sending our jobs to foreign countries. Can you think of any product or service we could use more of?



Except they'd all want government wages. In reading history, they built the railroad from coast to coast fairly quickly and inexpensively and some of the construction is still visible today.

Today, we get substandard steel that bends, bridges that collapse, and union wages. An overpass on a road can cost half a billion easy, and run two years behind schedule. Instead of being functional, it's artistic raising the price by a factor of 3. 

Who cares though, it's just government money, they can always get more.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

problem with social safety net is that it will get abused by people who are not in need... I don't mind paying more in taxes to help people who are REALLY desperate, who are hard working people down on their luck, but it is impossible to create such system with humans...


----------



## KaoruChiwa (May 21, 2017)

On a recurring historic basis, certain individuals get really really rich. And they are outnumbered by poor people. And when the disconnect becomes more than society can handle, the poor people, who are significant in number, go out with pitchforks and kill a lot of rich people. pulling back, the disenfrenchise can be either political power, or financial wealth (a byproduct of political power in all cases)
having a processed mean of redistributing the wealth is a really good idea for long lasting peace.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

On a historical basis, the inequality was generally inherited wealth and repression of the masses. There was no path to change ones lot from poor to rich. 

That is not true in Canada. There are means for the poor to increase their lot in life should they choose to do so and initiate action. True, there is no manual to give someone step by step instructions, and our education system teaches people to aim for paycheques as the ultimate goal, but that doesn't mean solutions aren't out there and people are being repressed. 

If you want to do a bit of work, opportunities abound. 

Of course it's easier to sit on the couch and ask for free money while feeling sorry for yourself.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

KaoruChiwa said:


> On a recurring historic basis, certain individuals get really really rich. And they are outnumbered by poor people. And when the disconnect becomes more than society can handle, the poor people, who are significant in number, go out with pitchforks and kill a lot of rich people. pulling back, the disenfrenchise can be either political power, or financial wealth (a byproduct of political power in all cases)
> having a processed mean of redistributing the wealth is a really good idea for long lasting peace.


This take from the "rich" mentality is largely MSM hysteria and re-enforced by our academic institutions. Or vice versa.

I'm by no means wealthy, or a high income earner and given that I already work approximately 7 months of the year to supply the government, how much more do you think I should give?


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

5Lgreenback said:


> This take from the "rich" mentality is largely MSM hysteria and re-enforced by our academic institutions. Or vice versa.


I was very surprised to hear the lyrics of Jetta - I'd love to change the world (from the Sense8 soundtrack):

Everywhere is freaks and hairies
***** and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Till there are no rich no more

Soooo politically incorrect...


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

Robin Hood only stole from the rich because the poor had nothing worth stealing.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> Except they'd all want government wages. In reading history, they built the railroad from coast to coast fairly quickly and inexpensively and some of the construction is still visible today.
> 
> Today, we get substandard steel that bends, bridges that collapse, and union wages. An overpass on a road can cost half a billion easy, and run two years behind schedule. Instead of being functional, it's artistic raising the price by a factor of 3.
> 
> Who cares though, it's just government money, they can always get more.


Weren't a lot of the workers who built those railways Chinese, many of whom were killed because of extremely unsafe practices? I don't think you can judge achievements solely on productivity. Using slave labour, for instance, might be cheaper and more productive than paying fair wages.

Are bridges actually collapsing more often then historically? I don't recall seeing any headlines lately.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

KaoruChiwa said:


> On a recurring historic basis, certain individuals get really really rich. And they are outnumbered by poor people. And when the disconnect becomes more than society can handle, the poor people, who are significant in number, go out with pitchforks and kill a lot of rich people. pulling back, the disenfrenchise can be either political power, or financial wealth (a byproduct of political power in all cases)
> having a processed mean of redistributing the wealth is a really good idea for long lasting peace.


Actually, I don't think that has happened very often at all, if ever. Most revolutions had ideological or religious causes, and the leaders are almost always educated and at least middle if not upper class. The illiterate masses are too busy trying to survive and not loose the little they have to start revolutions.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Joe Black said:


> Weren't a lot of the workers who built those railways Chinese, many of whom were killed because of extremely unsafe practices?
> .


Depends on what you mean by "lots" and if you go by Hollywood or history. 

According to the history books, between 15,000 and 17,000 Chinese labourers were used. From that between 600-1000 died, mainly from disease (fairly common for the time period, especially in crowded remote areas). 

I couldn't find stats on how many non-Chinese workers died, but I somehow doubt that number was zero. They were paid 1/3 less than a white man or, if you prefer the numbers to sound worse, a white man was paid 50% more than a Chinese worker. (Either way the Chinese workers were paid $1/day and white men $1.50). 

Math has a wonderful way to make stats look better/worse for your sound bite.


----------



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

Just a Guy:

Are you really interested in dissenting opinions, or are you just here to reinforce your own pre-existing beliefs? Your statements come across as very judgmental. Just out of curiosity, how many people do you regularly associate with who have really struggled, or who started off in life with huge disadvantages? Your implication that people who aren't working or need help are too lazy or don't want to work is an old stereotype and a large generalization.

I hope for your sake that you never find out what it's like to ever really need help from the social safety net.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Joe Black said:


> Using slave labour, for instance, might be cheaper and more productive than paying fair wages.


No. The exact opposite has been proven time and again. Actually Soviet communists agreed with you; that's why they created GULAG and used slave labour. Millions of slave prisoners were used across the country. Eventually the Soviets discovered that slave labour and fear were unproductive and and even GULAG prisoners had to be incentivised. Ultimately GULAG fell apart for economic reasons which was followed by collapse of the whole system a few decades later.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Brainer said:


> Just a Guy:
> 
> Are you really interested in dissenting opinions, or are you just here to reinforce your own pre-existing beliefs? Your statements come across as very judgmental. Just out of curiosity, how many people do you regularly associate with who have really struggled, or who started off in life with huge disadvantages?
> 
> I hope for your sake that you never find out what it's like to ever really need help from the social safety net.


Heh. Someone is coming across as judgmental. And prone to rush assumptions.


----------



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

zcv


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Brainer said:


> Just a Guy:
> I hope for your sake that you never find out what it's like to ever really need help from the social safety net.


You caught me, I've been pretty much a silver spooned kid. Check out post #72 of the UBI thread. Of course I did leave out some of the details like my vehicle getting stolen, the vehicle I borrrowed getting broken into (I repaired it before returning it, even though there was no money to do it), the run of bad luck that seemed to pile on during the same time, oh yeah and very young kids and a wife who was also disabled, not to mention the depression (still borderline, probably always will be, scars you know)...but I'm sure I've got nothing to compare to.

Of course now I spend my days gloating over the poor by working with them on a daily basis. I just volunteer to gloat, not because I know what it would be like. I probably only deal with several hundred on a yearly basis and maybe 30-40 case workers with 7 different organizations.

BTW, what's your experience? Ever been on social assistance? Personally I can say I've never been...couldn't qualify. I was one who fell through the cracks, no insurance, no big settlement, no idea what life would be like on it.

P.S. Could have mention being raised by my divorced mother with two siblings. Mother later remarried an alcoholic, and divorced a second time (never took alimony and only got $100 in child support) she also died fairly young. She never took social benefits either. She was a strong willed person, probably where I get it from, especially since I never saw my father. She did what it took to raise her family.

Nothing but tea and crumpets, caviars and the best champagne.


----------

