How many laws do we need?
Discussion
purplepolarbear said:
1. It should be legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
16. It should be legal to pay another person for sex.
Whilst it is not common across the country there are areas where a number people ride motorcycles on a road without a crash helmet. And it is legal to pay another person for sex.16. It should be legal to pay another person for sex.
The problem is that MPs make laws so that they can pass the buck to some other agency when things continue to be 'wrong'.
The fact is that most people want the laws that protect their interests and condemn those that hinder theirs or perhaps even just protect the interests of others.
Let us assume that the minimum wage was repealed and workers could be paid £1 per hour. There is little doubt that one can’t exist on £40 per week. Indeed, most of those on minimum wage have to have government handouts to enable them to pay rent and rates, let alone eat and clothe themselves. So what in essence would happen would be that businesses would make more money and the government would take more from us all to stop people starving. Buy ‘all’ I do not mean Green of course whose wife would be able to buy lots more Gucci shoes in Monaco.
For the moment let us assume that the populace is quite happy to starve passively. What would happen is that prices would drop considerably as much of the purchasing power would go out of the economy. This would mean, eventually, that those earning £40 per week would be able to afford food, shelter and clothing. So, in essence, we would be back to where we are at the moment.
There is a myth that the English do not riot and object when they starve. In fact, history is replete with uprisings, from that roofer bloke – the peasant’s revolt was in fact an uprising of the middle classes, the title being a bit of spin – to massacres before WWI. There are various theories as to why the populace was compliant between the wars but it would appear that there is no consensus. There was a change in the 60s and it would appear that the situation is changing at the moment.
Pay people starvation wages and there will be problems. You want something you have to pay for it and a compliant underclass is one of those somethings.
To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
Derek Smith said:
Pay people starvation wages and there will be problems. You want something you have to pay for it and a compliant underclass is one of those somethings.
To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
Hear, hear!To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
Derek Smith said:
Let us assume that the minimum wage was repealed and workers could be paid £1 per hour. There is little doubt that one can’t exist on £40 per week. Indeed, most of those on minimum wage have to have government handouts to enable them to pay rent and rates, let alone eat and clothe themselves. So what in essence would happen would be that businesses would make more money and the government would take more from us all to stop people starving. Buy ‘all’ I do not mean Green of course whose wife would be able to buy lots more Gucci shoes in Monaco.
Pay people starvation wages and there will be problems. You want something you have to pay for it and a compliant underclass is one of those somethings.
To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
Businesses generate far more tax than any individual, in the main and certainly pay their way. think about why individuals pay tax in the first place. Then add CT, Employers NI, SD if the business ever takes on property CGT if the business is ever sold, VAT and on and on. I can only assume you have no experience of owning and running a business.Pay people starvation wages and there will be problems. You want something you have to pay for it and a compliant underclass is one of those somethings.
To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
Having said that, poverty wages do cause problems, but there is no need for them if the economy of a country is in balance.
Sadly the UK is far from that with a massive bias towards public 'employment', layer on layer of parasitical politicians and a wildly out of control legislative system.
Decimate the numbers in Government at all levels, stop them and the legal 'profession' generating a mass of regulation and law that serves no-one but themselves and their might be enough wealth generated and not wasted to enable businesses to pay good wages.
AJS- said:
As for the original post - I'd like to see 2 basic laws
1) You are not to use force against someone unless they initiate it.
2) You are not to damage or steal anyone's property.
I like this version:1) You are not to use force against someone unless they initiate it.
2) You are not to damage or steal anyone's property.
Bill and Ted said:
Be excellent to each other.
Pretty much any extra law is superfluous, oppressive or both...Party on!
DSM2 said:
Decimate the numbers in Government at all levels
Decimation only removes a tenth of them...
DSM2 said:
Businesses generate far more tax than any individual, in the main and certainly pay their way. think about why individuals pay tax in the first place. Then add CT, Employers NI, SD if the business ever takes on property CGT if the business is ever sold, VAT and on and on. I can only assume you have no experience of owning and running a business.
Having said that, poverty wages do cause problems, but there is no need for them if the economy of a country is in balance.
Sadly the UK is far from that with a massive bias towards public 'employment', layer on layer of parasitical politicians and a wildly out of control legislative system.
Decimate the numbers in Government at all levels, stop them and the legal 'profession' generating a mass of regulation and law that serves no-one but themselves and their might be enough wealth generated and not wasted to enable businesses to pay good wages.
My point was that I do not want to subsidise the wages paid in Top Shop and similar. I work hard for my pittance and see no reason for the tax I pay - considerably less now that I'm self-employed - to help out shop owners. Thank goodness we are no longer a country of shopkeepers as I would not be able to eat.Having said that, poverty wages do cause problems, but there is no need for them if the economy of a country is in balance.
Sadly the UK is far from that with a massive bias towards public 'employment', layer on layer of parasitical politicians and a wildly out of control legislative system.
Decimate the numbers in Government at all levels, stop them and the legal 'profession' generating a mass of regulation and law that serves no-one but themselves and their might be enough wealth generated and not wasted to enable businesses to pay good wages.
What seems palpably obvious to me is that if the state, that's me, has to subsidise people who are in full employment to ensure they have enough to live on then someone is taking the mickey.
In 1976 I worked all but three days a month (sometimes more) and did 12-14 hours days. I had two children. If I had had one more I would have been able to claim supplementary benefit (as it was then). I sold my car and gave back my rented TV yet still, at the end of the year, had a bigger overdraght than in Jan.
My son, on leaving uni, worked in a position where he was paid what would have been sub minimum wage, this in London. I had to subsidise him - not that I minded I might add. He also worked very hard and did a very good job, according to his boss.
It seems to me that something is wrong with wages when people who work long hours and do a good job are in penury.
Derek Smith said:
Pay people starvation wages and there will be problems. You want something you have to pay for it and a compliant underclass is one of those somethings.
To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
My own instincts are very pro-free market, but I can see the benefits of the minimum wage. Ultimatly it is not the market setting a floor but a wage that someone has at least a chance of living on with some dignity. This is important to make living on welfare seem less attractive if for no other reason.To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
JagLover said:
Derek Smith said:
Pay people starvation wages and there will be problems. You want something you have to pay for it and a compliant underclass is one of those somethings.
To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
My own instincts are very pro-free market, but I can see the benefits of the minimum wage. Ultimatly it is not the market setting a floor but a wage that someone has at least a chance of living on with some dignity. This is important to make living on welfare seem less attractive if for no other reason.To be able to survive on minimum wages in the south east you need to be living with your parents or be subsidised through taxes. My taxes. I think businesses should pay their way. If any people working in Top Shop are being subsidised by my taxes then I think we should demand that they pay a living wage.
How can they make it work and not us? How does their law/ economy differ from ours that allows them to 'manage' without having to make it a law?
Is it a cultural thing?
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Wednesday 5th January 19:39
fluffnik said:
DSM2 said:
Decimate the numbers in Government at all levels
Decimation only removes a tenth of them...
Wikipedia said:
In current English use, the word decimation is often used to refer to an extreme reduction in the number of a population or force, usually greater than the one tenth implied by the "deci" root.
In Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould uses "decimate" to indicate the taking of nine in ten, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary supports the "pedigree" of this "rare" meaning
Cutting 9/10 government employees would be a good place to start.In Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould uses "decimate" to indicate the taking of nine in ten, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary supports the "pedigree" of this "rare" meaning
AJS- said:
fluffnik said:
DSM2 said:
Decimate the numbers in Government at all levels
Decimation only removes a tenth of them...
Wikipedia said:
In current English use, the word decimation is often used to refer to an extreme reduction in the number of a population or force, usually greater than the one tenth implied by the "deci" root.
In Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould uses "decimate" to indicate the taking of nine in ten, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary supports the "pedigree" of this "rare" meaning
Cutting 9/10 government employees would be a good place to start.In Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould uses "decimate" to indicate the taking of nine in ten, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary supports the "pedigree" of this "rare" meaning
Spiritual_Beggar said:
So how do Scandinavian countries and Switzerland geet away with having no minimum wage then?
How can they make it work and not us? How does their law/ economy differ from ours that allows them to 'manage' without having to make it a law?
Is it a cultural thing?
And have you noticed how those countries tend not to attract the levels of immigration which the UK does?How can they make it work and not us? How does their law/ economy differ from ours that allows them to 'manage' without having to make it a law?
Is it a cultural thing?
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Wednesday 5th January 19:39
fluffnik said:
DSM2 said:
Decimate the numbers in Government at all levels
Decimation only removes a tenth of them...
It seems a shame that words with specific meanings are lost to the English language by slapdash useage, seemingly endorsed by those outlets which used to maintain standards. How long before unique becomes rare and then quite rare, finally ending up meaning not the norm?
Decimate now means anything utterers feel they want it to mean. it is not a description so much as a direction.
Derek Smith said:
It seems a shame that words with specific meanings are lost to the English language by slapdash useage, seemingly endorsed by those outlets which used to maintain standards. How long before unique becomes rare and then quite rare, finally ending up meaning not the norm?
Decimate now means anything utterers feel they want it to mean. it is not a description so much as a direction.
Unless you happen to be a Roman soldier, "decimate" in the original sense is a pretty useless word.Decimate now means anything utterers feel they want it to mean. it is not a description so much as a direction.
The modern meaning (extreme reduction) is pretty clear and much more useful. This is a perfect example of the utility of a dynamic language.
Additionally, this provides ammunition for pedantic keyboard warriors, and keyboard wars are the only wars worth fighting.
Pints said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
So how do Scandinavian countries and Switzerland geet away with having no minimum wage then?
How can they make it work and not us? How does their law/ economy differ from ours that allows them to 'manage' without having to make it a law?
Is it a cultural thing?
And have you noticed how those countries tend not to attract the levels of immigration which the UK does?How can they make it work and not us? How does their law/ economy differ from ours that allows them to 'manage' without having to make it a law?
Is it a cultural thing?
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Wednesday 5th January 19:39
What I'm trying to find out is why does there need to be a 'law' on it?
It seems that in this country, the solution to every problem is to legislate against it....rather than actually looking at the root of the problem!
groak said:
I do. Because I would almost certainly be held to account by the law. And I am not interested in bearing the consequences. So I refrain.
Fear of the consequences of being caught is not the same as refraining simply because it would be illegal.A distinction our legislators have long forgotten.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
What I'm trying to find out is why does there need to be a 'law' on it?
It seems that in this country, the solution to every problem is to legislate against it....rather than actually looking at the root of the problem!
Simple really. It's easier to legislate than it is to resolve.It seems that in this country, the solution to every problem is to legislate against it....rather than actually looking at the root of the problem!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff