Osbourne Announces Benefit Changes for manifesto
Discussion
sidicks said:
XJ Flyer said:
You seem to be missing the point that the reason we are 'giving these people benefits' is because of the oversupply in the labour market reducing job opportunities and the low wage environment assuming they can find a job.
No, we give them benefits because after the government takes tax from the wages the net amount is not considered sufficient to live on.
You've still not justified why someone on minimum wage should be paying tax....
XJ Flyer said:
Which then leaves the question of the so called 'benefits' themselves.Assuming employers are paying the right wages for the right type of private income protection insurance policy system the issue of cover terms and claims would then be a private matter between the claimant and the insurer and nothing to do with you or the Cons.
The Cons reply in that case no doubt still being the minimising of insurance terms to save the employers money and thereby add to their profits.
Total nonsense - a long-winded attempt at avoiding the question.The Cons reply in that case no doubt still being the minimising of insurance terms to save the employers money and thereby add to their profits.
Make no mistake the rationed socialist income protection and NHS etc are of more benefit to the exploitation of cheap labour than to the unfortunate claimants and users of the system.
Which is why the Cons would rather keep it and keep rationing it ever lower than to get rid of the whole socialist scam and pay people what it actually takes to afford a decent private civilised private income protection and health care system that those chosen few who can afford it are used to.
XJ Flyer said:
I didn't need to because yours is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
You are wrong.XJ Flyer said:
[b]The question is why is the 'gross' minimum wage not high enough to live on 'and' pay for their social and health costs on a private basis 'after' paying a fair share into the nation's tax requirement.The inconvenient answer for the Cons being that the benefits system and tax revenues are being ripped off by low wage employment.
Given that the vast majority of people don't get near to paying their social and health costs then your question is somewhat meaningless.XJ Flyer said:
Make no mistake the rationed socialist income protection and NHS etc are of more benefit to the exploitation of cheap labour than to the unfortunate claimants and users of the system.
Which is why the Cons would rather keep it and keep rationing it ever lower than to get rid of the whole socialist scam and pay people what it actually takes to afford a decent private civilised private income protection and health care system that those chosen few who can afford it are used to.
Another rambling paragraph of nonsense!Which is why the Cons would rather keep it and keep rationing it ever lower than to get rid of the whole socialist scam and pay people what it actually takes to afford a decent private civilised private income protection and health care system that those chosen few who can afford it are used to.
sidicks said:
XJ Flyer said:
I didn't need to because yours is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
You are wrong.XJ Flyer said:
[b]The question is why is the 'gross' minimum wage not high enough to live on 'and' pay for their social and health costs on a private basis 'after' paying a fair share into the nation's tax requirement.The inconvenient answer for the Cons being that the benefits system and tax revenues are being ripped off by low wage employment.
Given that the vast majority of people don't get near to paying their social and health costs then your question is somewhat meaninglessRather than lets increase the wages so that we can afford to cover the costs of the population's living costs,health costs and income protection needs on a civilised private basis.
Which is just an indictment of our current hybrid form of Communist/Capitalism.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 29th September 21:59
XJ Flyer said:
Which is the problem.The wages aren't high enough to cover everyone's costs and taxation requirement.
But they would be if the taxation requirement wasn't so high....Hint, let's reduce the taxation requirement for those at the bottom of the scale.
XJ Flyer said:
In which case the whole system is unsustainable because the wages aren't enough.To which the Cons answer is lets ration the system to point of being effectively useless to anyone who needs it.
Rather than lets increase the wages so that we can afford to cover the costs of the population's living costs,health costs and income protection needs on a civilised private basis.
Because raising wages won't have any impact on the cost of goods and services (which will be felt most by those at the bottom of the ladder)...Rather than lets increase the wages so that we can afford to cover the costs of the population's living costs,health costs and income protection needs on a civilised private basis.
:
sidicks said:
As usual, you have it the wrong way around.
The untaxed minimum wage is the same as the living wage. The reason that people on minimum wage need government top-ups is that the government is taxing them too heavily...!!
I'm still waiting for your justification as to why taxing low incomes and then giving money back in benefits (with the associated inefficiencies and anomalies that this creates) makes any sort of sense (unless you're trying to force a benefit dependency onto people to retain their votes...)
It's a good question - how about "no representation without taxation" ? Paying tax is one way of keeping people in touch with the society they are living in - and maybe having some effect on what you might call the "entitlement" culture. "I pay tax, I'm part of society and have an interest in how it's (mis)spent".The untaxed minimum wage is the same as the living wage. The reason that people on minimum wage need government top-ups is that the government is taxing them too heavily...!!
I'm still waiting for your justification as to why taxing low incomes and then giving money back in benefits (with the associated inefficiencies and anomalies that this creates) makes any sort of sense (unless you're trying to force a benefit dependency onto people to retain their votes...)
WTC and CTC were well intentioned but very poorly implemented & with massive unintended consequences. I doubt UC will be any better - although the chance of it ever arriving in a meaningful way are slim.
In any case, I'd suggest setting a higher tax allowance wouldn't stop us paying benefits to taxpayers, unless you have another very complex set of rules for many different circumstances.
btw do you mean the untaxed min wage is the same as the (taxed) living wage? I can see that there is a big problem that pay rises for low earners give them no benefit with a near 100% withdrawal of benefits.
Of course if anyone wants to save £25bn from the govt budget, there are plenty of other decent options to consider
Crafty_ said:
Fittster said:
The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners
Why do we need to cut the deficit? The gilt market doesn't show any sign of your concern.
If you want to worry about something you might try and focus on the UK poor productivity and high unemployment levels that are behind the deficit. Although maybe we would all blame White Dee.
So your idea is to continue borrowing huge amounts forever because you can't be bothered to pay it off ?Why do we need to cut the deficit? The gilt market doesn't show any sign of your concern.
If you want to worry about something you might try and focus on the UK poor productivity and high unemployment levels that are behind the deficit. Although maybe we would all blame White Dee.
Why don't we just haul Brown back in then ? because 2008 was a right barrel of laughs wasn't it ?
Don't fall into the mental trap where you use an analogy to compare government finances in the same way as the finances of a microeconomic entity like a household.
Fittster said:
You might want to take a look at 'Modern Money Theory'.
Don't fall into the mental trap where you use an analogy to compare government finances in the same way as the finances of a microeconomic entity like a household.
you might want to look at the debt we have to service because of Brown and his "saving the world" attempts.Don't fall into the mental trap where you use an analogy to compare government finances in the same way as the finances of a microeconomic entity like a household.
I actually did mean to mention the interest too, I heard that Ed & Ed tried to work it out, but ran out of fingers & toes so gave up and just decided not to talk about the economy at all*.
Presumably Fittser will tell us its all part of "Modern Money Theory" and we don't need to worry
*Although plausible this is not true
Presumably Fittser will tell us its all part of "Modern Money Theory" and we don't need to worry
*Although plausible this is not true
Crafty_ said:
I actually did mean to mention the interest too, I heard that Ed & Ed tried to work it out, but ran out of fingers & toes so gave up and just decided not to talk about the economy at all*.
Presumably Fittser will tell us its all part of "Modern Money Theory" and we don't need to worry
*Although plausible this is not true
Ah found it, a mere £43bn a year. But don't worry the left believe that you don't need to worry, that government isn't like household finance. Presumably Fittser will tell us its all part of "Modern Money Theory" and we don't need to worry
*Although plausible this is not true
In fact lets borrow the money we need to pay the interest on the interest on the debt.
If we didn't have interest repayments think of all that lovely benefit cash we could hand out.
Crafty_ said:
I actually did mean to mention the interest too, I heard that Ed & Ed tried to work it out, but ran out of fingers & toes so gave up and just decided not to talk about the economy at all*.
Presumably Fittser will tell us its all part of "Modern Money Theory" and we don't need to worry
*Although plausible this is not true
http://modernmoney.wordpress.com/index/Presumably Fittser will tell us its all part of "Modern Money Theory" and we don't need to worry
*Although plausible this is not true
Can you explain why you don't think this branch of economics is relevant when discussing government deficits?
Fittster said:
http://modernmoney.wordpress.com/index/
Can you explain why you don't think this branch of economics is relevant when discussing government deficits?
Just recycled Keynesinism Can you explain why you don't think this branch of economics is relevant when discussing government deficits?
A primary account surplus, allows us to better look after ourselves and invest in the future. Run lower taxes and actually invest in other nations debt and get paid....
sidicks said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which is the problem.The wages aren't high enough to cover everyone's costs and taxation requirement.
But they would be if the taxation requirement wasn't so high....Hint, let's reduce the taxation requirement for those at the bottom of the scale.
XJ Flyer said:
In which case the whole system is unsustainable because the wages aren't enough.To which the Cons answer is lets ration the system to point of being effectively useless to anyone who needs it.
Rather than lets increase the wages so that we can afford to cover the costs of the population's living costs,health costs and income protection needs on a civilised private basis.
Because raising wages won't have any impact on the cost of goods and services (which will be felt most by those at the bottom of the ladder)...Rather than lets increase the wages so that we can afford to cover the costs of the population's living costs,health costs and income protection needs on a civilised private basis.
:
As for employers then passing the higher wages on into the economy in the form of higher prices the same answer applies.If people aren't earning enough to cover 'all' of their living costs 'and' their social/health costs and pay their share of taxes then the economic system isn't working and is doomed to failure.Which isn't surprising being that,as I've said,the current system is closer to exploitative top end greed driven Communism than Fordist Capitalism.
otolith said:
servicing the debt interest is costing me about £140 a month in direct taxes alone, that seems to me like a good reason to stop making it worse.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/w...Foppo said:
Why is there no wage growth? I know the argument is wage growth is increased inflation plus interest rise.
If a government wants more money out of people taxes will have to increase.You can't have it both ways clobbering the poor isn't going to do it.Or do I look at it to simplistic?
No that's basic economics and that's the problem for the Cons Communist idea of a global free market economy.In which making massive amounts of money for a few at the top by paying the lowest denominator in terms of wages is the object.With the collapsing developed western economies being the result.If a government wants more money out of people taxes will have to increase.You can't have it both ways clobbering the poor isn't going to do it.Or do I look at it to simplistic?
To prove the point read the details of Kennedy's ideas here and the economic figures they produced.Bearing in mind the difference at that time the demand created was directed into well paid domestic US jobs in a Fordist economy not Communist cheap labour Chinese imports in the global free market economy of today. IE the opposite of the Cons Communist ideas.
http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1960.html
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 29th September 23:54
Fittster said:
otolith said:
servicing the debt interest is costing me about £140 a month in direct taxes alone, that seems to me like a good reason to stop making it worse.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/w...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff