The Other Side of the Fence - The Rights of the Rich (well maybe not rich but tax-payer anyway)

In my last blog I was ranting about the inevitable (in my belief) rise in unemployment due to technology replacing many occupations. At some stage in my rant I felt myself starting to argue that most people who are unemployed do not wish to be jobless and they are not worthless human beings; so who foots the bill for all the unemployed who should not be denied assistance aka "a hand out"?

This got me on the slippery slope of wanting to say that those who make more should be forced to pay for those who make less or who are unemployed. But whose right is it to force anyone into paying for somebody else? Especially if those who are unemployed do not wish to or can't ever become employed, up skill or contribute to the society?

An example of where a generous state has been abused is England. In this case I believe that they have been picked out as having a soft touch so to speak. A country who lets in all and sundry and doesn't keep proper tabs on those it lets in to make sure they are becoming assets to the society. Now I'm not saying that all of the people who enter England are abusing the system, but I think that enough are so that the liberal immigration policy has been more hindrance than help.

Regardless of different races, creeds and cultures; a country cannot sustain itself by allowing more and more people to immigrate who end up unemployed, uneducated and cannot communicate in the nation's official language and who end up burdening the society.

As I said above, the original problem is not an issue of race, but it becomes an issue of race. There is a brewing undercurrent of racism and resentment towards anyone who doesn't look British, no matter how many generations their families may have been there. If you look like an immigrant, you pretty much are an immigrant in their books. And while I don't condone any adverse affects from this view; I can understand the resentment of the people who have watched their country slide down in part because of this added financial burden on their society.

Unfortunately, England's attempt at altruism as bitten them in the backside. And adds to my conflict about whether a government has a right to demand that the wealthy pay for the poor and take out the money out of someone's tax.

Now I know that this example of many unemployed immigrants is different from many people being made redundant who have lived and worked in that country all their lives but in the end it comes down to whether the rich should be forced to pay for the poor.

This is probably the main point that makes people feel a bit uncomfortable about the ideas of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Is this movement, as many people say, just about a group greedy people who are envious of the lifestyles of the rich and believes the world owes them a living? Personally I don't think so at all; at least, I don't think this is the motivation for most of the protesters.

I assume that these types of discussions are the kind that are occurring between the protesters putting heads together and I hope someone has some kind of breakthrough to some kind of system that is fair but keeps people's personal freedoms intact. A noble prize should go to that person.